John Kerry’s Jobs Program for Would-Be Jihadists

20130301_john_kerry_large_2013Last Friday in New York, at a meeting of the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), Secretary of State John Kerry and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu launched what they called the “Global Fund for Community Engagement and Resilience,” which CNSNews.com said was intended to “support local communities and organizations to counter extremist ideology and promote tolerance.” It will do this essentially by giving potential jihad terrorists money and jobs – an initiative that proceeds from the false and oft-disproven assumption that poverty causes terrorism.

Kerry demonstrated his faith in this false assumption when he spoke about the importance of “providing more economic opportunities for marginalized youth at risk of recruitment” into jihad groups. The GCTF is devoting $200 million to this project, which it calls “countering violent extremism” (CVE).

Kerry said this money would be used for “challenging the narrative of violence that is used to justify the slaughtering of innocent people.” But it doesn’t seem as if any significant amount of time or money will be devoted to any effort to convince young would-be jihadis that the al-Qaeda understanding of Islam is wrong, and that Islam is actually a Religion of Peace.

Rather, the GFCER of the CVE program of the GCTF bears more than just a passing resemblance to the WPA and the TVA and the rest of FDR’s alphabet soup of Depression-era recovery agencies. It is little more than a large-scale jobs program, as Kerry explained: “Getting this right isn’t just about taking terrorists off the street. It’s about providing more economic opportunities for marginalized youth at risk of recruitment. In country after country, you look at the demographics – Egypt, the West Bank – 60 percent of the young people either under the age of 30 or under the age of 25, 50 percent under the age of 21, 40 percent under the age of 18, all of them wanting jobs, opportunity, education, and a future.”

This will be $200 million down the drain, for a lack of “economic opportunities for marginalized youth” doesn’t fuel Islamic jihad terrorism in the first place. Is it poverty and a lack of economic opportunities that leads the fantastically rich House of Saud to finance that jihad worldwide? If Kerry were correct and terrorism is simply a byproduct of poverty, why isn’t Haiti a terrorist state? Why isn’t the world plagued with Bolivian suicide bombers?

In reality, study after study has shown that jihadists are not poor and bereft of economic opportunities, but generally wealthier and better educated than their peers. CNS noted that “according to a Rand Corporation report on counterterrorism, prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2009, ‘Terrorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated, or afflicted by mental disease. Demographically, their most important characteristic is normalcy (within their environment). Terrorist leaders actually tend to come from relatively privileged backgrounds.’ One of the authors of the RAND report, Darcy Noricks, also found that according to a number of academic studies, ‘Terrorists turn out to be more rather than less educated than the general population.’”

But none of this has sunk in among the political elites. According to CNS, Illinois State Senator Barack Obama talked in October 2001 about “some of the root causes of this terrorist activity,” noting that “for nations like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, or much of the Middle East, young men have no opportunities. They see poverty all around them and they are angry by that poverty.”

In reality, as the Times Online reported as far back as April 2005, “three-quarters of the Al-Qaeda members were from upper middle-class homes and many were married with children; 60% were college educated, often in Europe or the United States.”

There are innumerable examples of affluent Muslims becoming jihad terrorists. One was Maher “Mike” Hawash of Portland, Oregon, a well-regarded Intel executive who made $360,000 a year at the crest of a highly successful career. Around the year 2000 Hawash began to become more religious, growing his beard long, rejecting the nickname “Mike,” and attending the supremacist Islamic Center of Portland. Ultimately he served a seven-year prison term for conspiring to aid the Taliban.

More recently, there was Sabirhan Hasanoff, a graduate of Baruch College who was a senior manager at PricewaterhouseCoopers and then CFO of a large company in Dubai. Hasanoff was sentenced last Monday to eighteen years in prison for aiding al-Qaeda. Contrite at his sentencing, Hasanoff didn’t say anything about lacking economic opportunities – on the contrary, he said: “I made a good living and my family and I enjoyed a very comfortable lifestyle. And then, for reasons that I still have trouble confronting, I threw that all away.”

Those reasons that he had trouble confronting, according to AP, were rooted in Islam: “Inspired by radical clerics, he said his desire to strengthen his Muslim faith and fight atrocities committed against Muslims around the world mixed with guilt about his comfortable life.”

That would suggest that this new initiative of the Global Fund for Community Engagement and Resilience is not only doomed to fail, as it obviously is, but that it could be actively counter-productive: what if one (or more) of the potential jihadis who find gainful employ thanks to John Kerry and Ahmet Davutoglu start to feel guilty about their “comfortable lifestyle,” and turn to jihad in order to compensate for it, as did Sabirhan Hasanoff?

One thing is certain: John Kerry and Ahmet Davutoglu will never consider that question, and no member of the mainstream media will ever ask them to. Another certainty is that jihad terrorism will continue despite this new financial windfall for young Muslim men, and given the way these throw-money-at-the-problem solutions have worked in the past (cf. the billions we gave the Pakistanis to fight al-Qaeda, that instead ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda), it is likely that some or most of this money will end up financing that jihad terror. One wonders how long this madness can go on without anyone in the loyal opposition in Washington ever getting the clue that it is time for some accountability.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Chezwick

    It’s a Marxist premise – ‘economics determine all things’ – that has permeated our cultural and academic discourse. So we assign “poverty” as the #1 “root cause” for extremism…..(don’t you just love that phrase, root cause? it denotes a search for the ultimate truth….but has morphed into its veritable opposite…the deliberate creation of a wild goose-chase). The end result is the adoption of that paradigmatic liberal cure-all….throw money at it!.

    Next on the list is “lack-of-education”…which is just as obfuscatory (personally, I don’t fear an illiterate, subsistence farmer in Pakistan NEARLY as much as I do an affluent Saudi college grad with a chemical-engineering degree and a hard-on for Jihad).

    After that, we have the other usual suspects….”oppression”, “despair”, etc. These are the appeasement buttons the left is so eager to push: Give them what they want, and they’ll be pacified.

    We’re in search of every “root cause” in the book except the one that’s actually relevant….and THAT, of course, is RELIGION!

    • BTeboe

      Terrorism can be obliterated by not only catching and KILLING the thug, but everyone in his/her family as well. The word appeasement in not in a terrorists vocabulary.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        That’s fine and dandy. However, Muslims are not terrorists. They are jihadists instead, and they aren’t perpetrating terrorism. Instead, they are waging jihad in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam, as the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation of all
        religions and all infidels through both violent and non-violent jihad
        and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian
        law.

        • 2gcr

          Muhammad said:Bukhari:V4B52N220″Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’”

          Jihad by way of terror has been the example provided by the ‘perfect man, the mercy given for all mankind’.

          http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes_Terrorism.Islam

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Damn you are a very prolific loon. Go read my first response to you and stop boring me with your ignorance.

          • defcon 4

            Are you arguing w/the translation of a holy verse of islam?
            Heretic!

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Are you arguing w/the translation of a holy verse of islam?
            Heretic!

            Yes because the translator obviously doesn’t have the first clue about Islam. Nevertheless, none of his referenced passages says Muslims are terrorists. Nevertheless, he was taking the verses out of context to insinuate that Muslims are terrorists. They talk about instilling terrorism, but instilling and being terrorists are two very different things, that is unless like jihad, you can’t wrap your brain around reality. In any event, it is the violent jihadist’s goal to strike terror in the hearts of their enemies, i.e., infidels and crusaders, because it causes them to cower, grovel, and surrender in fear.

          • N. Wasse

            Not just in Bukhari but also in the Qur’an and for this read Q8:60 and it is called the “Terrorism verse” where the so called Allah tells Muslims to terrorize yes terrorize his enemies and you will find this verse on the flag of the terrorist organization called the Muslim Brotherhood

    • defcon 4

      Not “religion”, but islam.

  • VHG1

    Yes, quite! As I recall Osama bin Ladin was an impoverished millionaire! Kerry is right off target as usual! The 9-11 Saudis weren’t poverty stricken either! Where do liberals get their ideas? I suppose their ideas are inspired by what they read on public restroom walls!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Where do liberals get their ideas?”

      Soviet propaganda.

    • defcon 4

      OBL at one point owned Arabian horses, while he was a terrorist, that cost as much as the average home in parts of the USA.

  • chan chan

    In ’07, a muslim doctor tried to crash through the main terminal doors of Glasgow airport in Scotland, in a car laden with explosives which he then intended to detonate in a suicide bomb. But it failed to go off.

    What was it he said in court? – I forget…Oh yes, it was “I am a terrorist”.

    Fancy that? Who’d have thought? Whadda ya know etc etc…

    • defcon 4

      Can you imagine being a kafir patient of such a doctor?

      • ziggy zoggy

        No. When I was in Indonesia, Muslim doctors would routinely tell Christian girls they had ovarian cancer and talk them into surgery. And Indonesians are nowhere near as psychotic as the Raggies and Pakies.

        Dr terrorist wold probably tell us we have testicular or penile cancer and start breaking out the knives.

        • defcon 4

          One of my jewish friends had a muslime doctor, who “mis-prescribed” his dosage of blood thinners, despite the fact this muslime doctor was not supposed to prescribe the dosage for blood thinners at all as it was being monitored at a blood clinic. When he was luckily tested a week later and had large bruises all over his body, he was at double the therapeutic limit for coumadin. The PharmD said if he had continued taking the dosage prescribed by the muslime MD, he would been dead or in the ER. Coumadin used to be used as rat poison.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Did that happen in America?

          • defcon 4

            YES.

          • defcon 4

            Medical jihad is a reality, at least in the US.

  • Jason

    So, you’re spending 200 million dollars to help Muslims extremists get jobs overseas? Did you ever think that 200 million dollars might be better spent to help your own people get jobs? Idiot. Or even better yet, 200 million dollars to research and promote what Islam says about us as unbelievers. That would be money well spent.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      So, you’re spending 200 million dollars to help Muslims extremists get jobs overseas

      I hate to rain on your parade, but Muslims are not extremists at all because they are really mainstream orthodox Muslims. Stop thinking of Muslims as products of Western civilization with the same freedom of conscience we all enjoy. Muslims are products of Islamic civilization instead and Islamic civilization is 100 percent totalitarian. Indeed, the freedom of conscience in Islam is blasphemous and blasphemy is a capital offense.

      Moreover, since jihad, i.e., holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam is not only the highest pillar of which Islam stands, but also a holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another, then how are you going to designate some Muslim jihadists as being extremists, while deeming other Muslim jihadists as being so-called moderates? The reality is the existence of extremists, i.e., Islamists or radicals, exactly like the existence of so-called moderates, is a political correct myth. In Islam one is either a Muslim or not, and if it is the latter, then per the texts and tenets of Islam, he or she must be executed. In other words, the so-called “religion of peace” is really a very totalitarian cult masquerading as being a religion in order to dupe Islam’s intended victims, i.e., all religions and all infidels.

      • lessthantolerant

        We should be supplying all Muslim countries with small arms so they can kill each other more effectively. After all, a dead muslim is a good muslim.

        • defcon 4

          You never arm your enemies.

          • lessthantolerant

            We should provide all the same arms they can use, dead muslims are good muslims.

    • OldmanRick

      Scary Kerry doesn’t give a squat about America or Americans. Kerry only cares about Kerry. Since they are both extreme narcissists, the only difference between Kerry and the brat is that Kerry is piled higher.

      • A Z

        If Kerry only cares about Kerry, does that include caring about caring about his family?

        His kids & grandkids are going to have to live in this world after he is gone. By mucking up the world, he makes it harder for all including his descendants.

        He might consider that when Rome fell some Senatorial families survived the tumult and some did not. Marthas Vinyard and the Hamptons are not going to be beyond the reach of jihadis forever.

        That Dumb Mo should understand that fact.

        • defcon 4

          I’m sure they figure they’ll be living the lives of emirs or sheikhs, in guarded villas far above the madding crowds.

          • A Z

            Kerry was smart enough for the cesspool of American politics from 1970 until now.

            His luck may not continue. There are only so many top spots. If we did go Islamic we would have some transplants from the Islamic world come here and setup shop. They would have sharp elbows. Unless Kerry could arrange advantageous marriages, his grandkids could become hoi polloi quickly.

    • lessthantolerant

      Another bad idea by Lurch and his Messiah Obama.

      • Adam

        What would happen if a whole crowd of people called him Lurch at an event or several events?

        Would it break him?

    • Shermer

      I would rather spend the 200 million dollars paying Detroit’s bills. I know that is p__sing money down a rat hole, but it might have a little positive effect. Retirees could be made whole. business could be paid for service rendered. If the retirees were smart they would leave Detroit and the city would become a ghost town ending the night mare. Yes some people read liberals would not learn the lesson but at least the triage applied to the liberally inflicted wound would staunch the flow of money & blood for a short while.

  • tanstaafl

    Islam causes terrorism.

    • Mach1Duck

      Islam is terrorism.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Islam causes terrorism.

        No…not really. As a matter of fact, because Islamic culture is 100 percent totalitarian, i.e., all aspects of life down to the smallest minute details are tightly controlled by Sharia, it is impossible for Muslims to become terrorists, because that would make them blasphemous apostates and ex-Muslims at the same time. It would also gain them a death sentence as well.

        Instead, Islam cause jihad, i.e., holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam, as jihad is not only the highest pillar of which Islam stands, it is also a holy fundamental obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another. Hence, all Muslims are jihadists in one form or another. Otherwise, they are blasphemous apostates that according to the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed.

        Mislabeling jihad as somehow being terrorism is the reason that self-hating leftists and delusional Ron Paul kooks can get away with blaming America’s foreign policy and Israel’s harsh policies for generating terrorism. However, the reality is that jihad and terrorism are really two very different, distinct, and unique manifestations altogether. One is a product exclusive to Islamic society and culture only, and the other is a product of the non-Islamic infidel world.

  • Mach1Duck

    Dear John:
    Oh how I hate to write. You are wrong again! Poverty does not cause terrorism, in the case of Islam it is tribalism, and fanaticism. Tiribes need an external source to hate or the fall apart. Fanatics have absolute beliefs that no amount of argument will dislodge. Terrorist care less about poverty or economics that is why the Muslim Brotherhood in Lybia, Egypt, Lebenon, and now Turkey are failing. So put that in your Swiftboat and drift.

  • glpage

    When we have a government shut down or slow down, the very first funding that should be stopped is foreign aid, with the one possible exception of humanitarian aid that we can verify is going to help people. Vaccinations and food to help sick and hungry people is okay. Funding idiot research does not count.

  • Repentent Dem

    What a stale, trivial enterprise these important men devised! An organization to promote tolerance by giving away money – ugh – what a stupid notion. Kerry is an important man – but with an incredibly shallow brain pan….as this baloney testifies….

  • MarilynA

    Kerry is still living in the 1960s. We tried educating the third world and those who didn’t marry Americans so they wouldn’t have to go back home, went home and taught others how to use their new found technology to kill us and blow us up, and build nuclear bombs to threaten us with. We have just about killed our domestic energy industry so we could transfer our money to the Middle East and they spend it on arms, weapons, and bounties to make war against us. How much money have we spent trying to bring our poorest citizens up to par and all we have managed to do was increase their numbers. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

  • RLande

    “Progressives” think that other peoples’ money and government are the solution to all problems.

  • itaintmojo

    Is it just me, or does Kerry look like one of the Munsters?….Lurch

    • ziggy zoggy

      That’s because of the embalming fluid injected into his face.

    • Chezwick

      More like Herman….on the Adams Family.

    • lessthantolerant

      He has always been referred to as Lurch, he needs to cease his botox injections also.

  • ziggy zoggy

    What do you expect from a guy who thinks the West Bank is a country – and that it’s Islamic? Kerry is sexist pig, too. He doesn’t propose to give jobs and cash to young and poor Muslim women, even though their life prospects are much worse than those of muslim males. This, from a ponce who lives in his wife’s mansions and tools around in her yachts. He doesn’t care about any of those people anyway. He’s just trying to look like an important statesman.

    • ziggy zoggy

      And the notion that poor people are angry at the world over their poverty is a stupid left-wing creation in the West. People in poor countries envy but admire wealthy people. Seething resentment of the wealthy and class hatred is a Western problem. Not even the Soviet commies who originated the notion believed that crap. Is was just a trick to get people riled up and susceptible to communist claptrap.

      People in poor countries don’t think the world owes them a living. Unless they’re Muslims, of course.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Obama will probably invite them here to work for the National Park Service. Or just give them food stamps.

  • Gee

    Makes as much sense as Senator McCain’s claim the illiteracy was to blame, especially considering that a majority of the terrorists have college degrees

    • defcon 4

      I wonder if McCain is quite sane, or merely corrupt.

      • ziggy zoggy

        He doesn’t seem to be corrupt but sure gets some stupid ideas in his head. He should spend more time with his daughter.

        • truebearing

          He should spend more time retired. He’s an idiot.

  • SoCalMike

    Each and every career parasite bimbo who pushes this crap deserves a horsewhipping.
    At this point by now even the blind can see.
    But John Kerry and the rest of the left are addicted to Other Peoples Money so they never have to adjust or make intelligent choices.
    They just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again while mass media parasites help maintain the pretense and lie “they’re doing their best and working really really hard”.
    What a sick joke!

  • tracy

    And people think Obamacare is bad,this is ridiculous.Do people elected in our gov’t sit up at night and think of ways to waste the taxpayers money?We will cut 40 billion from the SNAP program that helps children and seniors,but we have enough money to give away to the enemy? This is up there with Obama giving the muslim brotherhood,what was it?8 billions for their good behavior.I am surprised that nobody has tried to assassinate these idiotic elected officials.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    So according to John Kerry, a.k.a., Lurch, poverty drives terrorism. However, Muslims aren’t terrorists. They are jihadists instead, and they are fighting jihad (holy war) in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam, as the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation of all religions and all infidels through both violent and non-violent jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law. Talk about totally 100 percent incompetent! It’s hard to believe, but we have the dumbest people in the world governing America. Amazing!

    • defcon 4

      So you can’t be a jihadist and a terrorist?

      • ObamaYoMoma

        So you can’t be a jihadist and a terrorist?

        It’s impossible since Islamic society is a completely totalitarian society that controls every single aspect of life down to the way even Muslims must all use the bathroom. Hence, if a person of Islamic persuasion perpetrated terrorism say in the cause of Marxism, for instance, then that would make them a blasphemous apostate in the eyes of Islam and gain them a death sentence in the process at the same time, as all Muslims are the slaves of Allah. There is no freedom of conscience in Islam so stop assuming that they are like us, because they are not.

        Very apparently you are confusing and conflating what is jihad as somehow being terrorism. However, jihad and terrorism are two very different and distinct manifestations altogether. The former is strictly an Islamic manifestation and the latter is strictly a non-Islamic manifestation. The former is specifically and only holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam only, while the latter is perpetrated for all kinds of various political causes and political reasons. Indeed, the former is holy war in the cause of Allah, and the latter is not. The former manifests both violently and non-violently, but overall astronomically far more non-violently relative to violently, and the latter, on the other hand, is always and only violent.

        Hence, it couldn’t be any more obvious that jihad and terrorism are not one and the same things but instead two very separate and uniquely different manifestations. Yet, people like apparently you and many of the writers here at FPM nonetheless conflate and morally equate both unique manifestations as being one and the same thing, with the inevitable result being non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, which manifests astronomically far more relative to violent jihad, being allowed to manifests today totally without opposition even though it is far more detrimental to our respective futures relative to violent jihad.

        For instance, it is widely projected that France will become a Muslim majority country in just 23 years, with several other Euroloon countries quickly following suit not far behind. This isn’t happening just by happenstance and coincidence, it is a very deliberate process, as it is a product of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, which, of course, isn’t even opposed today because it isn’t construed as being terrorism, which is always and only violent.

        Hence, unless the West has an unhinged death wish, it is very imperative that the West learns the simple process of distinguishing what is jihad from what is terrorism, because both manifestations are not one and the same thing but instead two very different and distinct manifestations altogether, and because if the West doesn’t, then the entire Western world in the not too distant future will end up exactly like France inevitably will, that is as subjugated Dhimmis under Islamic totalitarian rule.

        Thus, you have my main reason for exposing the writers that proliferate misinformation about Islam on a regular basis at FPM such as the venerable and very prolific Daniel Greenfield for one.

        • defcon 4

          Sometimes it seems like your difference(s) of opinion are nothing more than a battle over semantics — a tempest in a teacup.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Sometimes it seems like your difference(s) of opinion are nothing more than a battle over semantics — a tempest in a teacup.

            What’s so hard for you to understand? Is there a difference between war and terrorism, or are war and terrorism one and the same thing to you? Indeed, Jihad is specifically and only holy war in the cause of Allah for the establishment and expansion of Islam, and the warriors of that holy war, i.e., jihadists or Mujahideen (holy warriors), are the fighters of that war. They are not terrorists, as terrorists are political extremists and acts of terrorism are in essence very desperate political acts of extremism perpetrated for all sorts of political reasons and causes usually against non-combatant civilians. Muslim jihadists are not political extremists perpetrating desperate acts of terrorism for all sorts of political reasons and causes, because they are specifically and only fighting holy war in the cause of Allah for the establishment and expansion of Islam. Again, what is so hard to understand about that? Is war and terrorism the same?

            Furthermore, the global jihad manifests very similar to the Cold War with the old Soviet Union in that it manifests both violently and non-violently, but overall astronomically far more non-violently relative to violently via stealth and deception clandestinely. Meanwhile, terrorism, which isn’t even war, is always and only violent and is perpetrated willy-nilly by various political extremists for all sorts of various political reasons and causes.

            Muslim extremists aren’t perpetrating acts of terrorism in response to America’s capitalist foreign policy that raped the world of its natural resources if you are a delusional leftist, or in the case of Israel, in response to harsh Israeli policies, or in the case of Ron Paul Libertarian kooks, in response to America’s “interventionist foreign policy”. They are jihadists, i.e., Mujahideen (holy warriors), fighting holy war in the cause of Allah instead for the establishment and expansion of Islam. It’s a war. It’s preemptive war! It’s not terrorism.

            Moreover, jihad is the highest pillar of which Islam stands and also a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon every Muslim in the world in one form or another. Hence, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent jihadists (a tiny minority) or non-violent jihadists (the vast overwhelming majority). Otherwise, they are blasphemous apostates that according to the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed.

            Hence, since jihad is the highest pillar of Islam and since all Muslims are jihadists in one form or another, it is ludicrous to mislabel Muslim jihadists as being extremists, i.e., radicals or Islamists, because all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another. Meanwhile, terrorists, on the other hand, are always and only political extremists.

            So why is it so hard for you to understand that Muslim jihadists, i.e., Mujahideen (holy warriors), are fighting a war as opposed to perpetrating terrorism? Or is it you conflate war and terrorism as somehow being one and the same thing?

            Moreover, if it is only “semantics” to you, then why isn’t mass Muslim immigration to the West, which is really stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad for the very strategic purpose of demographic conquest, not opposed anywhere in the non-Islamic infidel world? I’ll tell you why, it’s because most people like you are conflating and morally equating what is really jihad (holy war) as somehow being terrorism, and because terrorism is always and only violent, while jihad, on the other hand, is both violent and non-violent, but overall astronomically far more non-violent relative to violent, the many forms of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, which again are far more ubiquitous relative to violent jihad, aren’t opposed because they aren’t construed as being terrorism since they aren’t violent.

            Thus, the solution is quite simple: recognize that Muslims are jihadists fighting jihad, which is a holy war waged against all religions and all infidels, as opposed to being terrorists perpetrating terrorism for various political causes and reasons. Then oppose jihad in all of its violent but far more ubiquitous non-violent forms.

            Nonetheless, if you continue to misconstrue jihadists fighting holy war as somehow being terrorists, i.e., assorted Islamic extremists, radicals, and Islamists, instead, then the West is inevitably doomed. Indeed, in just 23 years France will become a Muslim majority country, with many other Euroloon countries soon following suit, not through terrorism, but through very coordinated non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad that is totally ignored and unopposed because the world is totally transfixed only with stopping terrorism because the world has been very effectively deceived and misled into believing that Muslims are somehow victims perpetrating terrorism only in response to the West.

    • 2gcr

      Jihad by way of terror is the method used. So ‘Jihadists’ are terrorists in fact.
      Bukhari:V4B52N220″Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’”
      Qur’an:8:12″I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”
      Qur’an:8:57″If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Jihad by way of terror is the method used. So ‘Jihadists’ are terrorists in fact.
        Bukhari:V4B52N220″Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’”
        Qur’an:8:12″I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”
        Qur’an:8:57″If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”

        Why are you supplying translations translated by people like you that don’t have the first clue about Islam or the totally totalitarian nature of Islamic society? Not to mention as well, in not one of those translated passages you supplied does it label Muslims as being terrorists. Hence, stop ignorantly taking passages out of context to support your idiotic contentions, because it doesn’t make you right or any more intelligent.

        Moreover, violent jihadists intentionally want to create terror and to terrorize to make people cower, panic, and surrender in fear, but nevertheless that doesn’t make them terrorists like the Unabomber or Bill Ayers, for instance, because they are jihadists instead fighting specifically and only in the cause of Allah, as jihad in stark contrast to terrorism is holy war. Indeed, jihadists are soldiers of Allah, i.e., Mujahideen, and jihad is specifically and only holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam, and manifests unlike terrorism, which is always and only violent, both violently and non-violently but overall astronomically far more non-violently relative to violently. Thus, what do you want us to do? To continue ignoring and allowing non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad to manifest totally without opposition exactly like it is today?

        Indeed, Islam is very similar to Communism, as both manifestations are very aggressive and destructive forms of totalitarianism and both manifestations either tried or are currently trying to defeat the West mainly through clandestine stealth and deception, as Islam’s jihad is very similar to the Cold War waged by Communists.

        Furthermore, Muslims aren’t reacting with terrorist attacks to America’s capitalist foreign policies that have raped the world of its natural resources or in reaction to extremely harsh Israeli policies if you are a delusional leftist, or to America’s interventionist foreign policies if you are a self-hating Ron Paul kook. Instead, Muslims are waging jihad specifically and only in the cause of Allah for the establishment/expansion of Islam, as the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation into Islamic totalitarianism of all religions and all infidels through both violent and non-violent jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law.

        • 2gcr

          Do you work in a sharia governed country? I do. Know a little about Islam.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Do you work in a sharia governed country? I do. Know a little about Islam.

            So what you want me to do? Pin a metal on you? By the way, you apparently don’t know very much. Indeed, you ignorantly conflate and morally equate what is really jihad as somehow being terrorism. Hmm…I’d say it’s obvious that you don’t know very much at all. Thus, please don’t humor yourself.

          • hiernonymous

            You really try to get some mileage out of that silly terrorism/jihad dichotomy, as if it actually meant something. Terrorism is a technique. One can employ terrorism in support of any number of goals. There’s no reason, functionally, that terrorism can’t be employed in support of jihad.

  • Johnnnyboy

    Unless taught to the contrary, people take the world they live in as ordinary. Kerry thinking that they regard themselves as impoverished is Kerry projecting his opinion onto them. They seem impoverished to him. Quite naturally, with that egocentric world view, his conclusions are confused.

  • aposematic

    John Kerry, current Secretary of State, is following his Master’s and predecessor’s plans continuing the stealth financing of Islamic Jihad.

  • AdinaF

    How many times does it need to be proven, yes, jihadists are not ‘disenfranchised youths’, heck, more often than not they are educated and come from middle and upper class families! But no matter, the tall tales continue, for it is precisely what Obama Inc. and crew want to perpetuate. Yes, they do..

    In any event, the following IS why no amount of monies/programs and other feel good nonsense will turn them around: ‘Islam & Blood’ is inextricably linked. Like a pig to its ….and herein lies the thrust – Islam is the issue…the cancer! It is a death cult. Simple as that.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel

  • vulgar_imposter

    Here’s the kicker: John Kerry had the guts to go to Vietnam. David Horowitz? Not a chance. He protested against the war because it was the fashionable thing to do. With the rise of conservatism in the 1970s, Horowitz had found another cause to hitch his wagon to, and he became a wealthy man in the process. Horowitz has no core beliefs. He’s just another con artist in a nation full of con artists, and you idiots lap it up like unthinking dogs.

    • defcon 4

      And members of which death cult are fond of calling people “dogs”?

      • hiernonymous

        It’s a pretty common insult in many cultures. I heard it used in Germany – not sure what “death cult” prevails there.

        • defcon 4

          So he’s a nazi. Thanks for playing!

        • defcon 4

          Prove it’s common.

          • hiernonymous
          • defcon 4

            I know people from mainland China, they deny your assertion that calling people a dog is a common insult. Ditto for hispanics/latinos. I call BS.

          • hiernonymous

            Citations:

            The Chinese have a rich vocabulary of words and phrases specifically to humiliate and insult, some of which were in use before the advent of Communist rule in China. For instance the word “running dog” (gǒutuǐzi 狗腿子 or zǒugǒu 走狗) meaning an unprincipled person who helps of flatters other, more powerful and often evil people, was in use in this sense since the Qing dynasty.

            http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=21945&t=1

            http://wordsmith.org/words/running_dog.html

            Of course, we left out the U.S., where calling a woman a female dog is possibly the single most common insult. Or do you have an American friend who tells you that doesn’t happen, either?

            And since you want to delve into this a bit more, you should also return to the initial comment and question the whole “death cult” nonsense. “Kalb” (dog) is a common insult in Egypt among both Muslims and Copts; so on that basis, too, we should ask – which of the two “death cults” were you referencing, and why?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Of course, we left out the U.S., where calling a woman a female dog is possibly the single most common insult. Or do you have an American friend who tells you that doesn’t happen, either?”

            Please invite me to the church or synagogue where religious leaders are using this language about non-believers.

            Thanks a lot for your big help with these new discoveries.

          • hiernonymous

            “Please invite me to the church or synagogue where religious leaders are using this language about non-believers.”

            Up to this point, nothing about the conversation was discussing language in places of worship. But if you want some ‘dog’ language in the context of Jewish and Christian religious settings, happy to oblige:

            http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/10/rabbi-nachum-shifren-edl-is-the-salvation-of-the-west-from-muslim-dogs/

            http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/like-a-pack-of-snarling-dogs-todd-riley-sermon-on-apologetics-general-84539.asp

            http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/the-danger-of-feeding-dogs-and-pigs-brian-la-croix-sermon-on-what-is-evangelism-81829.asp

            This one’s not a sermon, but it’s interesting, because if you look in the comment section, you’ll see someone insisting that the “muslim dogs” should be beaten: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1727654/posts

            Here are few more secular uses of “dog” to consider before claiming that “dog” is somehow a uniquely Muslim insult:

            http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2011/09/syrian-muslim-dogs-to-feed-on-christian.html

            http://www.politicspoliticalforum.com/f19/let%92s-deal-muslim-dogs-20375/index4.html

            “Thanks a lot for your big help with these new discoveries.”

            Happy to give you the help you needed. Take care.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Up to this point, nothing about the conversation was discussing language in places of worship.”

            Of course not because you are looking for ways to conflate and obscure rather than edify be finding salient distinctions. We’re all just the same. Nothing to see here. That’s your key thrust.

            “But if you want some ‘dog’ language in the context of Jewish and Christian religious settings, happy to oblige:”

            The dog is occasionally used as a metaphor. It’s not used to incite violence and dehumanize people in Christianity or in Judaism. It’s used to comment on culture and in context is a call for holding ones own standards rather than accepting alien inferior standards.

            It’s very common today to here on Palestinian TV (and in other media) that the Jews are dogs worthy of attack. We’re not talking about the occasional obscure reference. We’re talking mainstream rhetoric, from religious leaders today using this language to incite violence. It’s not really about using a dog or a parrot or any metaphor. What is the meaning and intent behind these messages? They use it to incite violence and convey a message of superiority as beings, not merely that their standards for cleanliness are higher.

            And it’s not surprising when the target of rhetoric begins to *occasionally* throw the rhetoric back at the source. That doesn’t make it fundamental to their culture or even significant of anything. You can’t just speak about tendencies and aspects of culture as if these are absolute rules that are destroyed by one or a few counter examples. If that were the case there would not be much to talk about at all in drawing distinctions between cultures. Which is exactly why globalists use techniques such as yours; to obscure differences.

            “Happy to give you the help you needed. Take care.”

            I always do.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s good to see that you disapprove of dehumanizing rhetoric, language that tends to incite violence, and messages that convey superiority as beings. Interesting that you think such a characteristic solely of Muslim culture. How closely to you read the comments on this site?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s good to see that you disapprove of dehumanizing rhetoric, language that tends to incite violence, and messages that convey superiority as beings.”

            Context matters a lot.

            “Interesting that you think such a characteristic solely of Muslim culture.”

            I’ve already cautioned you about false dichotomies and trying to conflate with deceptive examples. What is most salient about Muslim culture is how often they act on this rhetoric. And how often they lie about it.

            We’re not superior “because we never use dehumanizing rhetoric” or some other false dichotomy you’re trying to create. We’re superior because we generally follow our constitutional values as much as possible which includes due process and freedom of speech. That means if someone in the West refers to another person as a dog, it’s a lot less likely to signal that it’s time to kill. And it’s never used to incite aggression. At it’s worse, someone might match rhetoric in a moment of weakness and anger. That’s just an example. You may see that as mere shades of the same gray but that’s sad if you can’t get any value from discussing non-trivial distinctions such as these.

            And furthermore, we’re talking about mainstream hate speech, as opposed to in the West where on rare occasions that it is used, it’s universally condemned by the likes of you no matter what the context.

            These distinctions may seem trivial when taken independently but they add up to important ones that must be made in order to understand an ideology that threatens Western culture everywhere.

            “How closely to you read the comments on this site?”

            Close enough to understand where people are coming from. Being imperfect is a whole lot different than inciting real-world murder and mayhem.

            If you want to criticize anyone, that’s your choice but if you want to have the last word, do it in a balanced way rather than with language and ideas that obscure the most salient messages being conveyed.

          • hiernonymous

            “We’re superior because we generally follow our constitutional values as
            much as possible which includes due process and freedom of speech.”

            Read that again, consider the implications, and you might begin to understand that the “false equivalencies” I’m accused of painting between Christianity and Islam are neither false nor are they irrelevant or misleading.

            You’ve just identified “our constitutional values” as the factor that distinguishes our civilization from “theirs,” by which you presumably mean the Muslim civilization. But the values you cite are not Christian values = they are the secular values of the Enlightenment. You continually describe Islam as “totalitarian,” yet Christendom, through most of its history, imposed laws and rules on its followers every bit as invasive, controlling, and intolerant as those of the Muslims. It was the advent of the Enlightenment, and the displacement of revelation as the source of knowledge and religion as the source of authority that led to the values you just cited as our source of ‘superiority.’

            Why does this matter? Because it demonstrates that you’re barking up the wrong tree by ranting about Islam, and contrasting it with other religions. It suggests, rather, that our emphasis should be on strengthening secular culture everywhere, rather than focusing on the merits and demerits of a particular religion.

            Pointing that Christians do horrible things, too, is neither evidence of conflation nor is it deceptive. It’s critical, since you now profess to be primarily interested in ‘solutions,’ for us to identify pitfalls in potential solutions.

            And furthermore, we’re talking about mainstream hate speech, as opposed to in the West where on rare occasions that it is used, it’s universally condemned by the likes of you no matter what the context.

            You know the old saying “actions speak louder than words?” You’re painting a picture of a Muslim society rabid with hate, and a Western civilization patient and tolerant, occasionally pressed beyond patience, but nowhere near as violent as the Muslims. Yet you’ll note that it’s Western troops occupying Muslim countries, not vice versa; Western militaries toppling their governments; Western navies patrolling their waters; Western drones lurking in their skies. If you are as dedicated to ‘balance’ as you profess, you should probably be asking yourself what our rhetoric would sound like if Saudi military convoys clogged our roads, or if American civilians were regularly killed by Jordanian drones in attacks on ‘militants.’

            “If you want to criticize anyone, that’s your choice…”

            Correct.

            “…but if you want to have the last word…”

            Couldn’t care less.

            “…do it in a balanced way rather than with language and ideas that obscure the most salient messages being conveyed.”

            You should probably consider that the ‘most salient messages’ are being highlighted and criticized, and that this is precisely the source of your discomfort.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Read that again, consider the implications, and you might begin to understand that the “false equivalencies” I’m accused of painting between Christianity and Islam are neither false nor are they irrelevant or misleading.”

            They’re false when presented as arguments looking for a kind of equivalence. They’re also used as red herrings to take attention away from salient distinctions. Therefore misleading.

            “But the values you cite are not Christian values = they are the secular values of the Enlightenment.”

            Dumbass, the enlightenment is a product of Judeo Christian culture and Biblical values. There would be no secular government if Biblical Christians didn’t fight for it. Atheists came in later and after getting religion divided from education they became free to lie about origins.

          • hiernonymous

            “Dumbass, the enlightenment is a product of Judeo Christian culture and Biblical values.”

            Well, wait – so was the Holocaust, but you didn’t seem as eager to embrace that one. What standard are you applying, again?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Well, wait – so was the Holocaust,”

            Yes, for the third or fourth time it was a product of Judeo Christian culture, as was the wider reaction to defeat it.

            “but you didn’t seem as eager to embrace that one.”

            Sure. I’m supposed to say “Oh shucks this dufus wins because supposedly Germans are Christians.” That would be “embracing the holocaust” to you.

            The “Islamic holocaust” has been going on for about 14 centuries whenever the opportunity arises, and there are people today planning to kill all of the Jews either globally or those within reach on the “Arabian” peninsula.

            “What standard are you applying, again?”

            I apply the same standard to all cultural analysis.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You continually describe Islam as “totalitarian,” yet Christendom, through most of its history, imposed laws and rules on its followers every bit as invasive, controlling, and intolerant as those of the Muslims.”

            If you paid attention at all, you’d hear the complete coherent discussions on these matters.

            Constantine was the first politician to abuse Christianity as a cover for totalitarian rule. Look it up. Others emulated his “success.” Nobody who followed the Bible did that. There is an excellent reason explaining why totalitarian “Christianity” was destroyed shortly after the printing press became available.

            Why is this important? Because there is no risk at all of any modern nation or movement employing anything like totalitarian Christianity. It’s not possible once the contents of the Bible became verifiable through the use of the printing press and now the Internet and other technologies.

            This is also why we know Islam can’t experience the same “reform” because it is a totalitarian martial religion in its origins and it’s texts. The Islamic reformers are the Wahhabis who took the texts and began propagating original and orthodox doctrines. Reformers in Christianity will be taken back to Jesus, reformers in Islam will be taken back to Mohamed.

            It’s clear today what each religion is about. Studying the past is very useful until people lie or selectively edit what the focus should be based on an agenda rather than a pursuit of salient facts and truths.

            Promoting theories like the idea that Islam needs to age a bit more is so incredibly stupid. Promoting theories that Islam is more or less “just like” Judaism or Biblical Christianity is just insane.

          • hiernonymous

            “If you paid attention at all, you’d hear the complete coherent discussions on these matters.”

            Islam’s not a topic that I’m worried about having missed much in the way of relevant information and arguments. If you have one of your own to make, knock yourself out.

            “Constantine was the first politician to abuse Christianity as a cover for totalitarian rule.”

            You must have an interesting idea of the meaning of “totalitarianism” to characterize Constantine’s reign as “totalitarian rule.” Perhaps you’d be better served by telling us how you are using the word.

            “Because there is no risk at all of any modern nation or movement employing anything like totalitarian Christianity. It’s not possible once the contents of the Bible became verifiable through the use of the printing press and now the Internet and other technologies.”

            This begs the question; it requires the reader to accept as a given that the contents of the Christian bible could not be so abused, and offers as evidence only the assertion that it could not be so abused.

            In reality, the invention of the printing press and the diffusion of vernacular versions of the scripture was followed by a spate of religious wars and included Christian sects that were far more invasive of their followers’ lives than the Catholic Church had been; you should take a closer look at even the religious laws of the early Northern colonies in what was to be the United States.

            It was the Enlightenment, and the general discrediting of religious rule in general, that more or less ended the probability of religious rule in the West. To assume that this is a permanent condition is as much hope as demonstrated fact; if the rise of the Nazis or the collapse of Yugoslavia taught us nothing else, it is that our assumptions about what is possible in the “civilized” world are occasionally unduly optimistic. The rise of the Moral Majority in the United States, while hardly totalitarian, was certainly a move back toward religious authority.

            “It’s clear today what each religion is about.”

            Well, no, not in the sense you mean. To argue that a religion is reducible to its scriptures – or, more accurately, to carefully selected portion of the translations of that religion’s scriptures – without giving equal weight to the actual practices and beliefs of that religion’s followers – and, for that matter, due attention to the many sects of each religion – is to engage in sophistry.

            “Promoting theories that Islam is more or less “just like” Judaism or Biblical Christianity is just insane.”

            Right – because why should a religion that arose in a Semitic tribe in the same part of the world as Christianity and Judaism, amongst people exposed to the Jewish and Christian traditions, and in fact living side by side with Jews, actually be related to those religions? Sure, the founder of the religion recounted the stories of the other traditions in his revelation, and incorporated their most significant religious figures, but…well, wait, what does the word “insane” actually mean to you again?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Islam’s not a topic that I’m worried about having missed much in the way of relevant information and arguments. If you have one of your own to make, knock yourself out.”

            Anyone reading these comments would see you’ve already been outclassed. I’ve no need at the moment to repeat myself.

            “You must have an interesting idea of the meaning of “totalitarianism” to characterize Constantine’s reign as “totalitarian rule.” Perhaps you’d be better served by telling us how you are using the word.”

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

            “This begs the question; it requires the reader to accept as a given that the contents of the Christian bible could not be so abused, and offers as evidence only the assertion that it could not be so abused.”

            If you understand the history of Christianity in comprehensive detail, it’s not that hard to understand at all. The evidence is written in the history books, though don’t try your public school library unless you’re very good at digging through politically correct BS before you find the facts.

            Sure, individuals can abuse any texts they want, but the dominant view has been that Christianity is not coercive in faith. It should be separate from government. That doesn’t mean people should ignore the moral lessons as they participate but that faith should not be coerced.

            But more importantly is that anyone can study history and see that the ideas behind the American constitution grew from the reformation and these are the dominant ideas today in Biblical Christianity. These are people that follow the Bible. Bible abusers exist too but it’s harder for them to build broad consensus.

            Between the time of dominant Catholic hegemony and today, there have been people that cited those Catholic traditions in order to argue for a less secular approach. Those ideas have increasingly tended to lose more and more for the past 5 centuries or so. The reason is that anyone now can read the Bible and hear more views than ever before and decide for themselves what the texts say. As the texts become more accessible it becomes easier to build consensus.

            OTOH, because it’s not coercive, someone willing to use coercion can fool some people in some circumstances. But they do this by citing extra-biblical sources.

            “It was the Enlightenment, and the general discrediting of religious rule in general, that more or less ended the probability of religious rule in the West.”

            And it is Christians before, during and after the reformation that fought for equality among all citizens regardless of faith and for noncoercion of belief. I explained this in another recent comment.

            Sure, anyone can lie about what something says, but you’re not reading carefully or you’re deliberately trying to be argumentative simply because you lost completely when trying to obscure crucial distinctions between Islam and Christianity, and just about every other major religion. Will people lie about the contents of the Bible again? I suppose anything is possible. But more important is that we have a religion today that has texts and traditions that call for killing people that refuse to submit. And there are enough people today acting on those exhortations to make it worth discussing.

            “Well, no, not in the sense you mean. To argue that a religion is reducible to its scriptures – or, more accurately, to carefully selected portion of the translations of that religion’s scriptures – without giving equal weight to the actual practices and beliefs of that religion’s followers – and, for that matter, due attention to the many sects of each religion – is to engage in sophistry.”

            I start with what is most salient: What the texts say and how those texts inspire behavior. Only by placing blinders over your eyes can you imagine that because in theory we have violence from all cultures, there is no way that Islamic texts and practices can make any significant difference. You use circular logic. Start with the texts and see if you can correlate the texts and how believers behave. With Islam, that’s very easy to do. It’s laughable that you can’t see that.

            “Right – because why should a religion that arose in a Semitic tribe in the same part of the world as Christianity and Judaism, amongst people exposed to the Jewish and Christian traditions, and in fact living side by side with Jews, actually be related to those religions? Sure, the founder of the religion recounted the stories of the other traditions in his revelation, and incorporated their most significant religious figures, but…well, wait, what does the word “insane” actually mean to you again?”

            Dude, in theory it could have turned out that way but the facts of history and all evidence shows that it hasn’t turned out that way. Do facts matter to you?

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

          • hiernonymous

            “Anyone reading these comments would see you’ve already been outclassed.”

            As a rule, someone who needs to announce how well he’s doing something, isn’t doing it as well as he thinks.

            “I’ve no need at the moment to repeat myself.”

            Well, you do if you want to support your “if you paid any attention…” contention; if you’re content to abandon it, that’s your call.

            Re “totalitarian,” your link is unhelpful; while your dictionary may included a definition that refers to simple autocracy, the term “totalitarianism” was coined to describe a state in line with definition “b” – that is, one that tolerates no individual liberty, that replaces all civil and legal institutions with those of the party, and which employs a coercive police force that operates outside the restrictions of any effective legal framework to coerce compliance with and participation in the party.

            You may well believe that Islam represents the latter definition – you’re certainly free to make your case – but there’s no case to be made that Constantine functioned in a manner remotely totalitarian. On the other hand, if you’re using the first definition, and characterize Constantine as “totalitarian” in the sense of merely “autocratic,” then 1) you’d be better served to say “autocratic” or “dictatorial”, and 2) your use of “totalitarian” loses all critical impact as applied to Islam. That’s why I asked what definition you were using – and instead of specifying, you provided a link that led to both.

            If you understand the history of Christianity in comprehensive detail, it’s not that hard to understand at all. The evidence is written in the history books, though don’t try your public school library unless you’re very good at digging through politically correct BS before you find the facts.

            Substantive comment of above: null.

            “Sure, individuals can abuse any texts they want, but the dominant view has been that Christianity is not coercive in faith. It should be separate from government.”

            This might have come as a surprise to Henry IV, to the Cathars, to the surviving Moors and Jews of post-Reconquista Spain, to the Huguenots, etc.

            “But more importantly is that anyone can study history and see that the ideas behind the American constitution grew from the reformation…”

            You’re begging the question. You keep resorting to “anyone can see” or “it’s generally understood” in lieu of developing your arguments and providing support. One can just as well argue that the primary significance of the Reformation was the erosion of Church authority, which gave secular philosophers the breathing space the philosophers of the Enlightenment needed to air their rational and humanist ideas. The ideals of our own revolution, as most eloquently articulated in the Declaration – life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness – are humanist ideals of the Enlightenment, not religious ideals of the Reformation.

            And it is Christians before, during and after the reformation that fought for equality among all citizens regardless of faith and for noncoercion of belief. I explained this in another recent comment.

            Have you ever actually read Luther? Equality among all citizens regardless of faith? Luther’s tolerance of Jews lasted until he was disabused of the notion that, since they could now read the Bible in their own language, they would naturally flock to Christianity; as soon as they expressed their intent to remain Jewish, he turned on them with a vengeance. Your characterization does not jibe with the facts. I invite your further attention to the treatment of Jews in Europe in the subsequent centuries, during which the sole bright spot is arguably Napoleon’s enlightened orders that Jews be granted full citizenship in the territories he ruled – and that equality did not long survive his own downfall, ending in pogroms in Germany.

            “And there are enough people today acting on those exhortations to make it worth discussing.”

            And I was still on active duty when one of our own generals declared that our god was stronger than their god, and we, too, have acted on those exhortations. Given that Christians are killing others with an efficiency that terrorists can only envy, it’s obvious that the question is not “why is Islam so violent,” but “why are people so violent.” You’re asking the wrong questions. What you try to portray as false equivalencies are actually quite relevant: our tolerant, peaceful, non-coercive West maintains a coercive and violent capability that dwarfs anyone else’s, and it uses said capability with some regularity.

            A more evenhanded approach would look beyond religion and encompass economic, political, and social factors that would obviate the need for the double standards required to excuse Western violence as atypical of Christianity, and Middle Eastern violence as typical of Islam.

            “I start with what is most salient: What the texts say and how those texts inspire behavior.”

            But that’s not what’s most salient, unless you’ve already decided that the roots of the issue are religious – and that’s not established. Do young Saudis or Sayidis turn to radicalism through religious fervor, or through alienation, humiliation, unemployment, poltical oppression, social pressures (such as the lack of socially acceptable contact with the opposite sex), etc, etc.?

            “Start with the texts and see if you can correlate the texts and how believers behave. With Islam, that’s very easy to do. It’s laughable that you can’t see that.”

            I’ve seen people of every faith behave with unimaginable savagery. Well, that’s not true – I’ve seen people of all the Abrahamic faiths behave with unimaginable savagery, and I’ve seen secondhand reporting (video, etc) of Hindus, Buddhists, etc doing the same. I’ve seen factors common to such brutality, but religion isn’t one of them. I’ve found that Muslims, Jews, and Christians who have the luxury of a relatively stable environment are all generous, helpful, and tolerant; and that people of all three faiths, when frightened, deprived, or hopeless, become disposed toward violence.

            “Dude, in theory it could have turned out that way but the facts of history and all evidence shows that it hasn’t turned out that way. Do facts matter to you?”

            Why, yes, they do, and I can’t help but notice the lack of any of them in your comment.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Why does this matter? Because it demonstrates that you’re barking up the wrong tree by ranting about Islam and contrasting it with other religions”

            Not at all. Only if we buy in to your assumption that Islam and Christianity are equally dangerous to our modern secular institutions, but Christianity created those secular institutions. Without Christianity, they would not exist. You’d be pagan or Muslim. And you’re life would be a living hell whether or not you want to face that reality.

            “It suggests, rather, that our emphasis should be on strengthening secular culture everywhere, rather than focusing on the merits and demerits of a particular religion.”

            Yes, you do wrongly suggest that. Which is why we’re having these discussions.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Why does this matter? Because it demonstrates that you’re barking up the wrong tree by ranting about Islam and contrasting it with other religions”

            Not at all. Only if we buy in to your assumption that Islam and Christianity are equally dangerous to our modern secular institutions, but Christianity created those secular institutions. Without Christianity, they would not exist. You’d be pagan or Muslim. And you’re life would be a living hades whether or not you want to face that reality.

            “It suggests, rather, that our emphasis should be on strengthening secular culture everywhere, rather than focusing on the merits and demerits of a particular religion.”

            Yes, you do wrongly suggest that. Which is why we’re having these discussions.

          • hiernonymous

            “…but Christianity created those secular institutions. Without Christianity, they would not exist.”

            Well, no. You’re applying an egregious double standard here. You insist that when Muslims do bad things, they do them because of their religion, but when Christians do bad things, they do so in spite of their religion (e.g. note the distancing of the Germans and the Holocaust from “Christianity.”) You can’t have your cake and eat it, too; if the horrors of Auschwitz were the product of a Christian culture but not of Christianity, then the advances of the Enlightenment are similarly distanced from the religion itself. And that’s the charitable interpretation, aimed solely at highlighting the internal inconsistency of your own arguments. Properly, you should do the hard work of demonstrating that Christianity was a necessary condition for the Enlightenment at all. Certainly, the ideals of the Enlightenment bear little resemblance to those of Christianity, with its emphasis on individual liberty and property, neither of which are greatly emphasized in Christianity.

            “Yes, you do wrongly suggest that.”

            Feel free to demonstrate same.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Well, no. You’re applying an egregious double standard here.”

            There is one standard for behavior but 2 standards for evaluating cause, because Christians use one set of texts for their canon and Muslims use an entirely different set.

            If we can find cause and effect connections between behaviors and the exhortations of the texts, that’s relevant to whether or not we blame the texts.

            “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too; if the horrors of Auschwitz were the product of a Christian culture but not of Christianity, then the advances of the Enlightenment are similarly distanced from the religion itself.”

            The enlightenment drew upon specific Biblical texts regarding justice and pursuit of ultimate objective or reasonable truth, the German National Socialists as far as I know did not peruse the Bible before making major policy decisions. As I said before, it’s interesting to note that they come from Judeo Christian culture, but they actually rejected the theology of the Bible. They absolute did not strive to adhere to it the way that enlightenment Christians did.

            One standard for judgment, many standards for analyzing groups because the groups themselves have varied sources for their ideas and morals.

            The German effort against Jews and other races certainly did arise from a Judeo Christian culture, but it was a clear rebellion from the texts. It was a rebellion from cultural Christianity to create another radical strain.

            So there are connections, but these were not Biblical Christians so you can blame Judeo Christian culture, but not Biblical Christianity. Obviously the way we deal with that history and the way Islamic supremacists deal with their history is another way you can understand important distinctions. You must also give Judeo Christian culture credit for our broad based response to the events as well. If “Christians” created it, then “Christians” fixed it. It’s not quite that simple.

            And Hitler is still very popular in certain parts of the world for very good reasons that we’re trying to explain here.

          • hiernonymous

            “If we can find cause and effect connections between behaviors and the exhortations of the texts, that’s relevant to whether or not we blame the texts.”

            Let’s focus on that “if.” Given that correlation and causation are not the same, how have you established “causation?”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Given that correlation and causation are not the same, how have you established “causation?””

            Testimony of the actors and deductive reasoning.

            You really don’t even know how often we have received explanations from jihadis precisely why they did what they did, quoting exact passages and so forth?

            It’s like your whole approach is to feign ignorance, or simply rely on your authentic lack of interest to go beyond superficial reports.

            Just like when we were discussing what some people might call hate speech (use of “dog”) as if any example is equal to any other example and you’re totally ignorant of the constant demonization of non-Muslims and particularly Jews, sometimes including Christians, that takes place in the mainstream media in many Islamic nations. All you have to do is look up some of the media watch reports to see the kinds of attacks the come up with, citing orthodox Islamic texts.

            You cite an example of some obscure Jewish rabbi or “leader” that referred to Muslims as dogs and for you, this supports your idea that we have no reason to criticize Islam as any more dangerous than Christianity. When Islamic sovereigns are supporting television campaigns to cite Islamic texts that refer to non-Muslims as dogs as a justification for forcing them to submit to sharia.

            All trying to build the case that all middle eastern religions are more or less the same.

          • hiernonymous

            “You really don’t even know how often we have received explanations from jihadis precisely why they did what they did, quoting exact passages and so forth?”

            A better question would be “you don’t accept jihadis’ explanations at face value?”

            What deductive reasoning do you offer as proof of a causative link?

            “It’s like your whole approach is to feign ignorance…”

            I had thought you wanted to skip the metaconversation. You don’t seem to be aware of how very vague your comments are; I’m trying to understand your reasoning. Repeating your conclusions does not establish those conclusions. In the case of violence in the Middle East, we have a welter of causes to examine, from across the spectrum of human experience, and you’re focused on religion to the exclusion of all else, insisting on a causal link you haven’t remotely established.

            Many people justify their actions in terms that they think their fellows will find more acceptable, palatable, or praiseworthy. Americans, for example, describe their military forces as “defending freedom” with predictable regularity, though very, very few of our military actions have made more than a tangential approach to defending freedom. When a jihadi tells us that he committed an act because of his religion, that may or may not be true or relevant. We know, for example, that terrorists tend to cluster in certain countries in ways that can be explained by economic and social contexts, but are very difficult to explain in religious terms.

            There are other relevant factors. Islamic government was more or less discredited by the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and in the wake of the collapse of the notables, the most common new governments were secular, socialist states. With the fall of the Soviet Union and its support, those states became increasingly corrupt, ineffective, and poor, and throughout the Arab Middle East, populations grew increasingly disenchanted with their despotic governments, whether holdover Arab Socialist states (a la the Ba’athists in Iraq and Syria, or Mubarak in Egypt), or the monarchies of the Gulf. Problem was, the United States, in its pursuit of short-term ‘stability,’ was the state propping up many of those corrupt regimes – e.g. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen – and this discredited the American model as a source of inspiration for those who opposed such regimes. Secular socialism hadn’t worked; the Ottoman-style traditionalist religious government hadn’t worked; Western democracy and capitalism was the force propping up their oppressors; so religious justifications and organizations are the vogue. Do you see the problem with correlation and causation? The impulse to resistance and violence precedes the election of religious justification for the same. Evidence of this includes the disproportionate clustering of terrorist recruiting in states such as Saudia and Egypt; one might well argue that the Saudis have a unique religious background (the House of Saud came to power in part through an alliance with the Wahabis), the same can’t be said for Egypt or other centers of such recruitment.

            Further, if you look to the intellectual origins of the jihadist movement, you’ll find that men such as Qutb and Muhammad Farag were generally not religiously trained; they were men of secular professions reading their own philosophies into a lay understanding of the Qur’an. Qutb, in particular, was overlaying the Leninist concept of the Vanguard of the Proletariat onto a Muslim backdrop, using a unique re-interpretation of jahaliya as a condition of being, rather than as a historical period, to justify his blueprint for violence. It’s curious that, if Islam is inherently and uniquely violent, that these intellectual underpinnings sprang up outside of, in contrast with, and in competition against, the centers of Muslim orthodoxy such as al Azhar.

            “All trying to build the case that all middle eastern religions are more or less the same.”

            I note the retreat, or, if you prefer, refinement of your position to something a bit more defensible – but, still, no, nothing I’ve said suggests that the religions are “the same.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Many people justify their actions in terms that they think their fellows will find more acceptable, palatable, or praiseworthy.”

            That’s true. The point is not to deny complexity or to deny that there are other causes as well, but to counter the mainstream view that “Islam is a religion of peace” and all of the bogus implications that go with that and related lies. If Islamic texts can be used to inspire or manipulate people to act, we need to know how serious the problems are. I suppose your desire is to pain all religions as more or less the same so that you can pursue your agenda promoting secular government or secular culture, or whatever. Regardless of your agenda, you seek to obscure crucial information about Islam to meet your selfish objectives.

            Your arguments are much less important overall today, and in the context of discussing these articles at this site almost entirely irrelevant except as footnotes because we’ve heard them all before and you can apply them to the entire human experience. We know already.

            You’re the one that tries to change the subject from Islam by characterizing criticism of Islam as xenophobia and other red herrings.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “When a jihadi tells us that he committed an act because of his religion, that may or may not be true or relevant. We know, for example, that terrorists tend to cluster in certain countries in ways that can be explained by economic and social contexts, but are very difficult to explain in religious terms. ”

            Islam, presented to the West as the “religion of peace,” is in fact a totalitarian martial ideology widely used to marshal resources to attack non-Muslims. People need to know this. You want to change the subject.

            In some other discussions you might want to know how many jihadi murderers have organic problems with depression or some other cause, but in their social interactions with other jihadis they organize around the ideas documented in their texts and that’s what we’re discussing. That’s what most of the liars are trying to obscure today, that all middle eastern religions are more or less the same. That it’s really not relevant that they believe in jihad and cite these texts as motive.

          • hiernonymous

            “That’s what most of the liars are trying to obscure today, that all middle eastern religions are more or less the same.”

            I could agree with that statement in my more cynical moments, but I don’t think that’s what you actually meant.

            I can’t think of any Muslims of my personal acquaintance that would agree with your characterization of Islam, nor who live their lives according to ‘totalitarian, martial’ precepts.

            Certainly there are Muslims who would agree – Qutb and Farag were among that number. But if your concern is the marshaling of martial resources in the service of violence against other cultures, it’s not clear on what basis you’re not focusing on, say, the pervasive American military presence – and lethal activity – throughout the Middle East. If you find the phenomenon of terrorism symptomatic of a violent society or ideology, you can’t simply dismiss the institutional violence that represents the very heart of American society. Our state is increasingly organized around our security apparatus, and we’re killing Muslims in numbers orders of magnitude higher than they’re killing us. What does that say of our “ideology,” if that’s the basis for your argument? If we’re trying to diagnose the causes of international instability and violence, we can’t selectively ignore such large pieces of the puzzle if we’re going to be honestly casting about for ‘root causes’ and ‘solutions.’

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But if your concern is the marshaling of martial resources in the service of violence against other cultures, it’s not clear on what basis you’re not focusing on, say, the pervasive American military presence – and lethal activity – throughout the Middle East.”

            We don’t plan our foreign policy in churches. We’re more open about how our society works. We provided a global network where anyone can log in and protest any policy. Our definitions of due process are entirely open and subject to criticism and revision through democratic processes.

            Etc. etc. etc. etc.

          • hiernonymous

            “We don’t plan our foreign policy in churches.”

            Well, Boykin’s comparisons of the relative strength of our gods aside, that rather underscores my point that we should probably not be looking at religion as our root cause. If our processes are as open as you suggest, and they still result in elective wars, then you’ve clearly got a root cause of mass violence that has has nothing to do with religion, and still results in that marshaling of resources for violence against other cultures.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Well, Boykin’s comparisons of the relative strength of our gods aside, that rather underscores my point that we should probably not be looking at religion as our root cause.”

            Muslims do plan foreign policy and aggression in their “churches” that are not really churches, but presented as equal to churches to naive Westerners. We don’t, they do. That’s why we’re discussing it. That’s an example that you fail to understand.

            “If our processes are as open as you suggest, and they still result in elective wars, then you’ve clearly got a root cause of mass violence that has has nothing to do with resources, and still results in that marshaling of resources for violence against other cultures.”

            That’s right. And we have the highest standards of justice. That’s what makes us superior. And what creates the need to discuss distinctions is that people like you want to obscure distinctions and as a result most Westerners remain ignorant.

            The fact that no society has ever reached true Utopian ideals doesn’t mean we can’t draw salient distinctions.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you find the phenomenon of terrorism symptomatic of a violent society or ideology, you can’t simply dismiss the institutional violence that represents the very heart of American society.”

            Other than disagreement between internal factions, we’re generally open and clear about our terms for peace and war. Jihadis lie constantly about their objectives because their texts call for them to force their religion any time they have the ability to do so. And most people like you, believe them when they go against their texts but doubt them when they’re obedient to their texts.

            This is fascinating to me.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Our state is increasingly organized around our security apparatus”

            And there is active discourse on these issues. Not always directly related to defending ourselves against jihadi efforts to secure sovereignty for an Islamic caliphate.

            “…and we’re killing Muslims in numbers orders of magnitude higher than they’re killing us.”

            And most of the time we do this judiciously. If they want the killing to stop, we’re clear about our terms, except for the distorted messages they get from their leftist allies, which we also discuss here.

            The bottom line is we are trying to discuss all of these issues in an organized fashion based on saliency. By ignoring or misunderstanding, you’re presenting arguments in deceptive context. And some times your explicit statements are wrong as well.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What does that say of our “ideology,” if that’s the basis for your argument?”

            All tolled, it says that we are a far more open and democratic society and that we’re a lot more clear about what our terms are and what our values are.

          • hiernonymous

            Really? How openly and clearly did we articulate our reasons for invading Iraq? How democratic and transparent was that process?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Really? How openly and clearly did we articulate our reasons for invading Iraq?”

            There was probably more open debate about that war than any other in history. It was too democratic if anything.

            We see more examples of you paying attention only selectively.

            Or is this yet another case of implying that lack of perfection means lack of moral authority to criticize?

            There is no perfect society or man made system. There never will be. It’s ok to try to perfect things as long as you acknowledge that and strive to balance your ideals with a grounding in reality.

            And while you strive for perfection you might find it useful to spend some time honestly critiquing past results and prioritizing according to saliency.

          • hiernonymous

            You assert that our decision for the Iraq war was open and “too democratic, if anything” – but, in reality, tight control of information and misinformation was used to rush and channel decision-making to result in a war that had clearly already been decided on in decidedly non-democratic fashion. We supposedly went to war over Iraq’s WMD and their support of al Qa’ida; neither pretext was accurate, and it’s highly unlikely that either reflected the actual motives of any of the factions pushing for war. That’s hardly democratic, and the open debate was not the decisive debate.

            “Or is this yet another case of implying that lack of perfection means lack of moral authority to criticize?”

            I would suggest that lack of perfection implies that one should display the same understanding of human failings when examining others that one displays in examining oneself.

            I would further suggest that, if you are looking for ‘saliency,’ that one finds it by applying one’s energies to those variables that one has the ability and right to correct. And you never know how it could pay off. For example, you might want to consider the unlooked-for consequences of American racism and Jim Crow in mid-20th Century America when considering the personal history of Sayid Qutb.

            Finally – and this is the most significant, in the context of this conversation – our imperfections directly result in a foreign policy that drives a great deal of the hostility and opposition that you want to chalk up to religion. Oddly enough, Muslim attitudes toward America were quite benign, and even friendly, before the United States adopted an interventionist policy in the Middle East. Islam did not change during that period – in fact, it’s a key contention of yours that Islam’s nature does not change at all – which suggests that our own behavior has a bit to do with our Middle Eastern problems.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You assert that our decision for the Iraq war was open and “too democratic, if anything” – but, in reality, tight control of information and misinformation was used to rush and channel decision-making to result in a war that had clearly already been decided on in decidedly non-democratic fashion.”

            In reality, deranged leftists used the war to attack Republicans and conservatives. In reality it was the most openly debated war in history. We even solicited permission from the UN, which gives voice to more people, including our enemies than any other venue.

            What more could you realistically expect?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “We supposedly went to war over Iraq’s WMD and their support of al Qa’ida”

            Educated people understand that we were dealing with risks and imperfect intelligence as we always are when dealing with enemies and life in the real world.

            And it turns out that the left did most of the lying so all of your arguments are bogus. I’ve seen video of small prototype factories for making small bombs and killing weapons that look like every day objects to smuggle on to transport systems and so forth. In Iraq, shortly after the invasion.

            And we did not need to tie Iraq directly to 911. The salient implication of the events of 9-11-2001 is that our enemies have further reach and effectiveness than we realized and we can’t simply let wars fester on for years because they’re seemingly far enough away.

            If that debate confused you, don’t blame me.

          • hiernonymous

            “Educated people understand that we were dealing with risks and imperfect intelligence as we always are when dealing with enemies and life in the real world.”

            Well, no. There’s imperfect intelligence, and there’s active misrepresentation of intelligence, and the latter is not an excusable inevitability. The claim that Iraq was working with AQ was not a function of “imperfect intelligence,” it was a function of misrepresenting the intelligence we had. The administration’s public statements on WMD did not reflect the IC’s understanding of the same.

            “And it turns out that the left did most of the lying so all of your arguments are bogus.”

            The Senate committee that found the administration significantly misrepresented the pre-war intelligence comprised 9 Republicans and 8 Democrats.

            And it probably doesn’t bear pointing out that “the left did most of the lying so all of your arguments are bogus” is an inanity.

            “I’ve seen video of small prototype factories…”

            Is this supposed to demonstrate Iraq’s possession of WMD, its links to AQ, or is it just offered as an example of how you spend your leisure time?

            “And we did not need to tie Iraq directly to 911. The salient implication of the events of 9-11-2001 is that our enemies have further reach and effectiveness than we realized and we can’t simply let wars fester on for years because they’re seemingly far enough away…”

            Well, yes, if we are going to invade a country, topple its government, and spark years of chaos and bloodshed, then we needed a lot more than a vague sense that “our enemies have further reach and effectiveness than we realized.” First, “enemy” is a pretty vague term, and Iraq had not showed itself to be our enemy, in the sense of any intent to attack us. The only war ‘festering’ in Iraq – the tit-for-tat no fly zones – was an elective conflict that we chose to continue, and could have ended at any time.

            “If that debate confused you, don’t blame me.”

            Why would I blame you? Were you a participant in those debates?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There’s imperfect intelligence, and there’s active misrepresentation of intelligence, and the latter is not an excusable inevitability.”

            Well there are excuses but I know where you’re going and I believe the burden of proof is on you. Please show me where deception was employed by the executive branch to create a pretext and deceptive argument for war. Even if your accusation is completely accurate, all they’re accused of doing is manufacturing supporting evidence that fleshes out the same case made by the evidence that is undeniably authentic.

            And therefore it does not change the fundamental justifications for war even if true. I personally would have had much higher standards but I did not personally examine the evidence. I stand by my statements that the case for war was presented in the most democratic way possible. There was no need for most of it. Yet we still went through that huge burden to build consensus and that gave the enemy time to prepare without doing anything that served our interests.

            War itself is not supposed to be purely democratic. We have democratic processes, not some pure democracy, and going too far is not sensible, especially when definitions of “democratic” include giving the enemy information that we’re better off preserving for ourselves. That’s why we have executives and secret operations. That’s also why we have the Freedom of Information Act. Which does not provide a means to challenge executives before they make each decision. Some secrets are necessary for a time. Information is classified accordingly. That’s a very high level of democracy.

            The democratic process is rational when you hold officials accountable for results. We’re the most democratic and open society ever. The Internet is not an Islamic gift to the world.

            And I’ll repeat my idea that trying to poke holes by quoting leftist talking points about Iraq is very far away from showing how Islamic ideology is more or less equal in terms of due process and democracy according to our constitutional values.

            If you want to come right out and say that Islamic law is more or less equally just or “morally equal” to American constitutional values, you’re free to say it. It’s useful for people to hear that position stated explicitly rather than implicitly.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “For example, you might want to consider the unlooked-for consequences of American racism and Jim Crow in mid-20th Century America when considering the personal history of Sayid Qutb.”

            I’m looking forward to hearing all about it. But the MB predates Qutb’s hatred of the West. You’re the one wearing the blinders. You’re the one calling people xenophobes for discussing root causes of Islamic terror. Your explanation that they’re just like us (more or less) and that if I wasn’t such an Islam-o-phobe we could all get along and find out how these people suffer because “grievances” just like every other misfit. I am familiar with these leftist theories that are used to obscure legitimate comprehensive answers to questions about root causes.

            It’s not about “AQ ideology” as root cause. It’s about jihad in emulation of the prophet of Islam. The most radical idea Qutb had was to attack Muslims who were not sufficiently violent when he expected it. It doesn’t explain as much as you seem to think.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Finally – and this is the most significant, in the context of this conversation – our imperfections directly result in a foreign policy that drives a great deal of the hostility and opposition that you want to chalk up to religion.”

            You simply misunderstand the discourse. I don’t deny those factors at all. I deny that they are fundamental root causes. You’re the one denying ideology. After all, most of the “grievances” are based on creating completely fictional pretexts for attacking non-Muslims. they even kill their own people if they have any way to blame their enemy.

            And Islamic ideology justifies this in a number of ways. If they don’t have some kind of collectivist justification for attacking us, they create one as I explained. Just look at what Israel deals with constantly from the terror groups attacking it and the many Islamic sovereigns lined up supporting the big lies they use.

            Understanding Islam more comprehensively is unquestionably the key to the puzzle. And you’re taking us in the wrong direction for example the moment you refer to someone like me as a xenophobe. And it’s typical from leftist tyrants who refuse to look objectively at history and the evidence it provides.

          • hiernonymous

            “You simply misunderstand the discourse. I don’t deny those factors at all. I deny that they are fundamental root causes.”

            No, I don’t misunderstand. You seem to believe that repeating your conviction that certain causes are “salient” makes them so.

            “After all, most of the “grievances” are based on creating completely fictional pretexts for attacking non-Muslims.”

            I don’t have any trouble thinking of any number of legitimate grievances; not sure why you would assert that most are ‘fictional.’ The invasion of Iraq wasn’t imaginary. Support for the Mubarak regime wasn’t imaginary. Israel’s occupation of Southern Lebanon was real. Sharon’s visit to the Dome of the Rock was real.

            “… they even kill their own people if they have any way to blame their enemy.”

            That’s actually a great example of how the people you refer to as jihadists are out of step with mainstream Islam. Their justification for this is rooted in Qutb’s book “Milestones,” in which he turns the traditional concept of jahiliya on its head, insisting that “jahiliya” is a state of mind or a condition, rather than a historical period, and that those who refer to themselves as Muslims but are corrupt or support the enemies of Islam are, in effect, not really Muslims, and thus not fellow believers.

            I’m surprised that someone who keeps offering to instruct me on Islam wasn’t aware of this. Haven’t you read Milestone? Or Farag’s The Neglected Duty?

            “And you’re taking us in the wrong direction for example the moment you refer to someone like me as a xenophobe.”

            When I see someone declaring entire civilizations to be our ‘enemies,’ I take that as a pretty fair indicator of xenophobia.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I don’t have any trouble thinking of any number of legitimate grievances; not sure why you would assert that most are ‘fictional.’ The invasion of Iraq wasn’t imaginary. Support for the Mubarak regime wasn’t imaginary. Israel’s occupation of Southern Lebanon was real.”

            Leftist lunatics always pull things out of history without looking at cause, as if we just randomly go off and spoil people’s lives. If you look at the timeline in ascending order you’ll see we should be the best friends of the MB and most of the Islamic world for our anti-colonial positions. But instead they fabricate elements on the timeline and leave key events out as if they don’t exist. It’s not that we’re above criticism, but we bend over backwards to be fair. All rational people with knowledge of the facts understand how we got here today, and it’s not about America as a bully, unless you beleive that spreading democracy and freedom from tyranny is a bad thing. The thing is that jihadis expect sharia, which is compulsory for all, not just for faithful Muslims. Therefore when we allow people to be free from tyrants, we just might be creating that grievance you accept at face value. The “root cause” of war in Israel is Islam, and it’s need to be sovereign according to sharia, which is tyranny to any non-Muslim. You can either live under their expectations and submit to sharia or you can expect grievances until then. And they won’t always be honest about it.

            “Sharon’s visit to the Dome of the Rock was real.”

            You truly are insane if you think Sharon was not absolutely entitled to go there any time day or not.

            You truly are a lunatic to cite that as a legitimate grievance or anything close to it. What a waste of time you’ve been. You’ve made my point for me without even realizing it.

          • hiernonymous

            “If you look at the timeline in ascending order you’ll see we should be the best friends of the MB and most of the Islamic world for our anti-colonial positions.”

            We were, while we actually maintained our anti-colonial positions. It was when we became neo-colonialists ourselves that the relationship went South.

            “All rational people with knowledge of the facts understand…”

            Identify the fallacy in play here.

            “…unless you beleive that spreading democracy and freedom from tyranny is a bad thing.”

            It depends on the methods; I’m no adherent to “ends justifies the means.” Our support for Mubarak, the House of Saud, Saleh, the al Sabah haven’t resulted in any noticeable spread of democracy or freedom from tyranny.

            “Therefore when we allow people to be free from tyrants,…”

            That line might play in Peoria, but not in the Middle East. The U.S. has manage the occasional high-minded foreign policy play outside the Middle East, but inside, we tend to support tyrants, not supplant them, in the name of stability, military access, and control of energy resources. How’s our track record? Well, we overthrew the Taliban, a bright spot we promptly extinguished by replacing them with an ineffectual kleptocracy, to the extent that we replaced them with anything at all. The Sunni dictatorship in Iraq is now a Shi’a autocracy. The autocratic Shah of Iran was sidelined by Mossadegh, whom we promptly overthrew, re-invigorating the despot monarch. We prop up the House of Saud, the al Sabah, the al Thani.

            And this is, in part, precisely because the Cold Warriors who have replaced international Communism with Islamism as the existential threat of the moment are either so frightened of Muslim extremists, or profess to be so, that instead of pursuing actual freedom and democracy, we prop up whichever tyrant promises us access for our military forces and cooperation in the GWOT.

            “The “root cause” of war in Israel is Islam…”

            Interestingly, the primary resistance to Israel until the latter’s invasion of Lebanon was the secular PLO. It wasn’t until Israel retained control of Southern Lebanon after evicting the PLO that they sparked a resistance movement among the theretofore politically apathetic Shi’a that developed into Hizballah – which became far deadlier than the PLO ever had been.

            You also conveniently wish away the issue of the displacement of the Palestinians. That’s not a religious issue. Pointing this out does not imply that all of the wrong is on the side of Israel, or that all of the right is on the side of the Palestinians, but to pretend that the root of the Israeli-Palestinian issue is Muslim religious doctrine is to willfully blind oneself to the actual events. Israel was created in territory where there had been prior inhabitants; many of those inhabitants were killed, abused, or dispossessed. It’s also true that the Arab states around Israel have taken full advantage of this situation, and for many years encouraged it – though, again, those states were decidedly secular, and did so for geopolitical advantage, not religious doctrine.

            “You truly are insane if you think…”

            There’s a voice of rationality.

            “You’ve made my point for me without even realizing it.”

            Of course.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There’s a voice of rationality.”

            Not that we expect insane people to recognize what is or isn’t rational.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Oddly enough, Muslim attitudes toward America were quite benign, and even friendly, before the United States adopted an interventionist policy in the Middle East.”

            You have a very simple view of global politics. There are various ways to attack and enemy and one proceeds with caution when the enemy can crush you should they muster the will to do so.

            “Islam did not change during that period – in fact, it’s a key contention of yours that Islam’s nature does not change at all”

            Correct. There are unchanging ideas and doctrines that instruct how to respond to changing circumstances and how to attack various enemies under those circumstances.

            “which suggests that our own behavior has a bit to do with our Middle Eastern problems.”

            Only to the ignorant. If they don’t get what they want (global sharia) one way, they try the other way according to the unchanging fundamental doctrines of sharia. Whatever changes we observe come as a result of interpreting modern circumstances. The fundamentals are unchanging because Muslims are to emulate the prophet of Islam.

          • hiernonymous

            “Only to the ignorant.”

            Another sound argument.

            “If they don’t get what they want (global sharia) one way, they try the other way according to the unchanging fundamental doctrines of sharia. Whatever changes we observe come as a result of interpreting modern circumstances.”

            This ignores the fact that the pattern of anti-U.S. violence following U.S. interventionist policies is not unique to the Middle East. When our Middle Eastern policies were benign, Middle Eastern attitudes to the U.S. were benign. You’d do better looking at the Cold War, rather than the Qur’an, as the trigger for many of our Middle Eastern problems. Our conviction that the Cold War was a zero-sum game led to many foreign policy decisions that violated our alleged commitment to the Wilsonian ideals that had won us so much respect in the region after WWI. The overthrow of Mossadegh is the obvious example. In Egypt, we actually had a bright spot, challenging the invasion of Egypt in 1956, but we squandered any potential goodwill from that incident by our mishandling of the Aswan Dam situation. And so on. What’s germane here is that we’ve done similar things in other, non-Muslim, parts of the world, with similar results. Vietnam’s an obvious case. In Honduras, our military presence and activity sparked the creation of resistance groups, such as the Cinchoneros, that had not existed before, and that largely evaporated when our military interventions in Nicaragua and El Salvador ended. It’s a pretty safe bet that the VC and the Cinchoneros were not inspired to their anti-U.S. activities by the unchanging fundamental doctrines of sharia. Given that similar foreign policy activities have resulted in similar resistance before, your confidence that our primary problem in the Middle East is religious doctrine seems a bit misplaced.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I can’t think of any Muslims of my personal acquaintance that would agree with your characterization of Islam, nor who live their lives according to ‘totalitarian, martial’ precepts.”

            I guess you don’t know Mohamed and you don’t know that Muslims are called to emulate him.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Properly, you should do the hard work of demonstrating that Christianity was a necessary condition for the Enlightenment at all.”

            That’s not very hard to do. It came out of the “Christian” reformation movement. It’s origins are from the sola scriptura movement as well as some Catholics who had some of the early ideas that eventually spawned that movement. Christians developed it when Catholics still had dominant cultural hegemony and a huge amount of influence over the European rulers of the day.

            Atheists skip all that and pretend the enlightenment came out of Darwinism. It’s hilarious and false.

          • hiernonymous

            “Atheists skip all that and pretend the enlightenment came out of Darwinism. It’s hilarious and false.”

            Which atheist did that? It would be curious indeed, given that the Enlightenment was giving way to the age of Romanticism before Darwin was born. Could you offer a credible citation, or did you invent that?

            When you attribute the origins of the Enlightenment to the sola scriptura movement, you need to be more specific. In what sense do you mean that?

            I could understand some indirect influence – such as Locke being influenced by exercises in freedom of conscience (which are hardly unique to Christianity), and he was also impressed by arguments for religious tolerance advanced by some Baptists, but it’s one thing to note that Christian culture was part of the backdrop of the Enlightenment, and another entirely to credit the main ideas of the Enlightenment to Christian ideals. Spinoza, in particular, might have taken issue with your contention.

            Locke was certainly inspired by examples of freedom of conscience, but it’s not obvious that freedom of conscience is a uniquely Christian characteristic; the Buddha, for example, displayed it in spades

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Pointing that Christians do horrible things, too, is neither evidence of conflation nor is it deceptive.”

            Not necessarily, but that’s what you do nonetheless.

            “It’s critical, since you now profess to be primarily interested in ‘solutions,’ for us to identify pitfalls in potential solutions.”

            Right. Finding realistic solutions means first realistically identifying root problems. You work against that.

          • hiernonymous

            “Finding realistic solutions means first realistically identifying root problems. You work against that.”

            You’re begging the question; if you believe what you’re saying, you should welcome challenges. Be that as it may, what I work against is the xenophobic fringe, whose idea of “realistically identifying root programs” more closely resembles scapegoating than thoughtful reflection.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’re begging the question; if you believe what you’re saying, you should welcome challenges…”

            It’s not even close to the first time I said that I always welcome all comments and I don’t believe in any censorship. I’d rather have people try their theories out and then reply.

            “Be that as it may, what I work against is the xenophobic fringe, whose idea of “realistically identifying root programs” more closely resembles scapegoating than thoughtful reflection.”

            We’re scapegoating when you can show that we’re targeting people and ideas that don’t deserve to be targeted that way. It’s a very easy argument to use labels when all your other efforts have failed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You should probably consider that the ‘most salient messages’ are being highlighted and criticized, and that this is precisely the source of your discomfort.”

            Wait till you win the arguments before declaring yourself winner and presuming what makes me uncomfortable. You’re a very long way off from that.

          • hiernonymous

            “Wait till you win the arguments before declaring yourself winner…”

            I never declare myself the “winner” of a debate; if I have the better position, it’s obvious; and if I don’t, claiming it won’t make it so. Not sure what comment of mine you interpreted as such.

            “…and presuming what makes me uncomfortable.”

            That I infer from context. If you prefer to conduct this conversation without further metaconversation, I’m good with that.

          • defcon 4

            Wow you just described the holey trilogy of islam to a “t”, which denigrates anyone non-muslime, but in particular Jews. Thanks for playing though!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Egypt among both Muslims and Copts; so on that basis, too, we should ask – which of the two “death cults” were you referencing, and why?”

            So the “Coptic death cult” also threatens people with death while referring to them as dogs. I did not know this.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “It’s a pretty common insult in many cultures.”

          It’s common to which religions that pretend to be “Abrahamic” and “worship(ing) the God of the Bible?”

          • defcon 4

            Thumbs up OFM, you stick it to Hieronymous every time.

          • hiernonymous

            See my other posts. In addition, you might want to google the phrase “muslim dogs” and chew on the food for thought that results.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Gee, I googled “Muslim dogs” and it turns out that Christian preachers are constantly trying to incite violence and calling Muslims dogs. You can find videos for every weekend and the attendees cheer and scream “jihad” and “death to the nonbelievers” every time these belligerent comments are made.

            Whoa. I stand corrected.

          • hiernonymous

            “I stand corrected.”

            Yes.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Yes, and Ketchup Kerry’s disgraceful record is still on display for all to see in John O’Neill’s book, “Unfit for Command.” And when he left the Swifties with the shortest service record in history, HE became a hippy protester because it was the fashionable – and politically opportunistic – thing to do. He lied under oath about witnessing phony atrocities. Some hero. He became a wealthy man after he launched his anti-American political career, mainly due to meeting the right dowagers to marry. He has no core beliefs. He is just mouthing the same hippy platitudes he learned back in his formative years. He has not progressed or matured. In lefty parlance, he has not evolved.

      Horowitz couldn’t be more different from Kerry. Polar opposite, if you ask me.

      It’s obvious what you’ve been lapping up, you Obamaton. Did you come here because you used up your last troll payment? Do you need your next bags of weed and munchies?

    • Drakken

      The question that should be asked leftard, is did you serve in any capacity in the Armed Forces of the United States of America? Or is carrying water for leftist/regressives far more important to the cause?

      • hiernonymous

        Vulgar makes a good point. Do you have a good response?

        And you already know the answer to your red herring, so don’t waste the trons.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          With all due disrespect, Vulgar is an unhinged moron exactly like you.

          • hiernonymous

            Okay.

    • M2000

      Idiot coward Leftist doesn’t mind our money is being spent to help aid the enemy, cause that’s okay if it’s a Democrat, vote Democrat and support our enemies! That’s Obama’s slogan.

    • brutus

      hes just a jew treasonous israel firster who speaks for and to the rest of the treasonous jews in america, the times have changed though and americans are aware of the pervasive jewish ytreason and media manipulation,and are NOT happy

      • objectivefactsmatter

        All violent attacks are “Israeli False Flag”

        Including when Bush did 911

        Jet fuel can’t melt steel

        Jews run the world

        Things we all know about…but we’re afraid to say because the Jewish run NSA will report us to the Jew in the Whitehouse, Mr. Barack Hussein 0′Bama.

      • defcon 4

        You’re f’ing crazy, but islam will do that to people.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “With the rise of conservatism in the 1970s, Horowitz had found another cause to hitch his wagon to, and he became a wealthy man in the process.”

      Of course. We have no way to know what he’s really thinking so we must apply this simple logic from the imposter. It’s about the money. You can tell by what he writes.

      Sincerely, just another leftist

  • garyfouse

    If only this fund would have been in effect and someone had given Usama bin Laden a job. (I’m joking. he had millions from his Dad’s business.) How does genius Kerry explain that?

    • defcon 4

      Hilarious. Of course there’s no one in Washington who would dare to bring up such commonsense questions anymore.

  • LDMack

    What? OMG, we’re giving them MORE money?

  • ServosT

    Kerry probably wonders why these Muslims can’t just marry incredibly wealthy widows of rich Republicans. It’s a strategy that’s kept him off the streets.

  • phenry

    So which is it? Muslims become terrorists because they are poor or because they don’t like infidels on their land or because Muslims are superior or because seventh century military strategists envy the technology of the West or because the Ottoman Empire was demolished or because the West became rich and powerful while the Islamic countries became impoverished or because Israel oppresses Palestinians or because a book says how Muslims ought to live or because terrorists receive a stipend for their families if they blow themselves up? Which is it, Mr.Obama? If Islamic leaders really believe in their paradise, then why don’t they blow themselves up instead of lying to young people? Are the old leaders cowards? What are they afraid of, they are going to die soon anyway? If poverty was the real reason for Muslims becoming terrorists, then 99.9 percent of Muslims would be terrorists rather than the .1 percent rich Saudis who sell this propaganda. Now we really know why they called it the Dark Ages. It is becoming darker again already.

    • hiernonymous

      “So which is it?”

      What makes you think that it’s just one of those, or that one of them applies to all terrorists and extremists? Trying to reduce complex problems to simple formulations leads to simple non-solutions.

      • phenry

        You are right. There is no one reason why all terrorists or jihadists are attacking, raping and slaughtering villages, towns and people all over the world. Unless, of course, the Islamic leaders are actually attempting to establish their goal and dream of Caliphate. We shall see.

        • hiernonymous

          It would be like trying to find a single reason we invaded Iraq.

          “Unless, of course, the Islamic leaders…”

          Which Islamic leaders? No, there’s no “unless.” There are those who dream of establishing (or re-establishing, depending on your viewpoint) the Caliphate. There are also those who dream of building powerful secular states, those who dream of building prosperous economies. There is no more a monolithic set of motivations in the Middle East than there is in the United States.

          • phenry

            You are right again. Any discussion is pointless. Like i said, we shall see. Any further commentary is meaningless, so let’s not ponder as to why the Islamists (al-quaeda) are assaulting infidels. Let’s just let it happen. Or as progressives would have us think, there is no danger to be concerned about. Or as Islamists say, “Islam means peace in English”.

          • JacksonPearson

            “There are also those who dream of building powerful secular states, those who dream of building prosperous economies.”

            BS…There’s no such thing as secular states in the Middle East, only Islamic. And those so-called dreamed of economics states you mention, are run by fascist, Islamic dictators.

          • hiernonymous

            Thanks for your input.

      • defcon 4

        Only to simpletons who defend islam.

        • hiernonymous

          It would be a simpleton indeed who thinks that Islam is something that must only be attacked or defended.

          • defcon 4

            Tell it to the hundreds of thousands of Christians being ethnically cleansed by lying islam0nazis such as yourself — throughout the muslime world dirtbag. Ditto for the Hindus, Sikhs and Christians of Pakistain and Bangladesh. The Jews, Zoroastrians and Baha’i of Iran. Go suck some camel urine, direct from the source.

          • hiernonymous

            As I recall, it wasn’t Muslims who tried to exterminate the Jews. And before you start telling me a sad, misguided story about how the Germans weren’t Christians, or acting in the name of Christianity, you might want to take a long and serious look at the treatment of Jews throughout European history. Again, your simplistic thinking leads to simpleminded and wrongheaded ‘solutions.’

            “Go suck some camel urine, direct from the source.”

            I didn’t know your mom was still alive. Give her my best.

            Is that really the level you want to play this on?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As I recall, it wasn’t Muslims who tried to exterminate the Jews. And before you start telling me a sad, misguided story about how the Germans weren’t Christians, or acting in the name of Christianity, you might want to take a long and serious look at the treatment of Jews throughout European history. Again, your simplistic thinking leads to simpleminded and wrongheaded ‘solutions.’”

            You’re obviously new around here. We talk about it all the time. We generally try to edify rather than obscure and confuse which is why we don’t jump around from discussing Islamic persecution and answer that with something like “Christians are worse” because it’s not helpful and not accurate either.

            Christianity is not totalitarian. There is no legitimate Christian sovereign that rules coercively according to the Bible. Therefore noting that many Germans are “Christian” might be interesting, but you’re a very long way away from explaining the holocaust.

            Certainly some heretical violent cultural Christians had traditions of irrational violent and unjustified antisemitism. To deny that would be almost as bad as denying Islamic colonialism. Well, not really in the same class but I’m pretty generous.

            The main point is that when we want to come up with solutions we must discuss the root problems rationally. These “you’re all a bunch of imperfect hypocrites,” or, “who are you to talk” attacks are pretty useless towards that end unless you’re intentionally running interference for our enemies.

            Are you?

          • defcon 4

            There are three “authentic” hadith that call for the extermination of Jews DB. The charter of Hamas cites one of them. The MSU at the University of Southern California cited another one (or maybe the same one). I haven’t heard any muslimes anywhere renouncing them either.

          • hiernonymous

            “The main point is that when we want to come up with solutions we must discuss the root problems rationally.”

            Yes – which is why it’s important to point out the irrational, however irritating you may find it. The “solutions” that the paranoid and unbalanced characterizations of Muslim societies one finds on these pages are more typical of the demonization and dehumanization intended to justify more final “solutions” than a reasonable man would entertain.

            “…unless you’re intentionally running interference for our enemies.”

            When we disagree on who “our enemies” are, your question is meaningless. There’s also that “are you with us or against us” mindlessness that seeks to preclude the use of reason by assuming that disagreement is tantamount to treason. I’m not buying what your selling in either department.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yes – which is why it’s important to point out the irrational, however irritating you may find it. ”

            You’re perfectly free to try, but since you don’t understand the conversations but barge in anyway, it’s clear to me why you fail at your stated objectives. My theoretical “irritations” have nothing to do with my rational positions.

            “The “solutions” that the paranoid and unbalanced characterizations of Muslim societies one finds on these pages are more typical of the demonization and dehumanization intended to justify more final “solutions” than a reasonable man would entertain.”

            I understand this is your feeling. You barge in and follow your gut while trying to sound reasonable. This forces you to rely on misleading generalizations. You’re new here so it’s up to you to understand context better before you presume to understand what we’re talking about to each other.

            If you want to comment on text in the articles you should quote them directly. If you’re commenting about conversations between people who’ve already set context for each other that you’re not aware of, then you’re commenting on these things with at least partial ignorance.

            “When we disagree on who “our enemies” are, your question is meaningless.”

            It might be meaningless to you, and that would not shock or even surprise me. This is clear already and part of my point. It indeed has meaning because it forced you to articulate your disagreement.

            “There’s also that “are you with us or against us””

            I never said that. But if we’re talking about enemy actions, you can’t be both for us and against us at the some time. Under what theory are you neutral when you’re actually aiding enemy propaganda?

            “mindlessness”

            Dupes lecturing me about mindlessness.

            “that seeks to preclude the use of reason by assuming that disagreement is tantamount to treason.”

            Right. I’m forcing you to stop thinking. It’s obvious I’m trying to trick you.

            Some times you say things that are incredibly stupid. If you knowingly aid an enemy, that’s treason. If you’re a dupe, that’s another matter but it’s still worth exposing. If you’re not involved at all, you’re neither for or against us.

            You’re involved and you’re helping cover for stealth jihadis. Dupe or traitor, not clear. My guess is that you’re a dupe. You’re certainly involved when you try to show enemies are “just like us” as they’re trying to destroy our civilization.

            Tell me again how all religions and cultures are basically the same.

          • hiernonymous

            Bulk of post translates as “I don’t like you butting into my conversations, which you don’t know enough about.” To the first half – tough. Use email or IM if you want to have private conversations. To the second – the conversation’s there to be read, and so far, you haven’t shown me to have misread or misunderstood a conversation, so much as you’ve asserted that some of my criticisms have been dealt with elsewhere. That’s the nature of public forums, I’m afraid; I’m responding to the comments, not critiquing your personal understanding of the world. If you think you’ve made comments elsewhere that provide useful context, link or post or summarize, but don’t complain that you’re not being treated as an Edward Said or Bernard Lewis whose oeuvre should be studied before responding to one of his public statements.

            “Under what theory are you neutral when you’re actually aiding enemy propaganda?”

            Your comment begs the question; you’ve assumed that your characterization of a particular group as an enemy is a given, when, in fact, it’s a matter under dispute.

            “Right. I’m forcing you to stop thinking. It’s obvious I’m trying to trick you.”

            No, it’s obvious that you’re trying to stigmatize opposition to your brand of xenophobia as unpatriotic. When you describe disagreement with your position as being possible only by a traitor or a dupe, you’ve stopped employing reason.

            “Dupe or traitor, not clear.”

            A nice illustration of my point.

            “Tell me again how all religions and cultures are basically the same.”

            Remind me when the first time was.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Use email or IM if you want to have private conversations.”

            I don’t care if you read it. I’m simply pointing out your relationship to the conversation as a third party. And like all of your other advice, I don’t find that tidbit useful either.

            “No, it’s obvious that you’re trying to stigmatize opposition to your brand of xenophobia as unpatriotic.”

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

            xe·no·pho·bia: noun ˌze-nə-ˈfō-bē-ə, ˌzē-

            : fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners

            Who am I supposed to be afraid of? You’re obviously confused and can’t follow the conversations.

            “When you describe disagreement with your position as being possible only by a traitor or a dupe, you’ve stopped employing reason.”

            People often stop after they finish completing something. I already gave my reasons over and over to you directly.

            “Remind me when the first time was.”

            I’ll stand on what each of us wrote.

          • hiernonymous

            “Who am I supposed to be afraid of?”

            About 1/6th of the world’s population, apparently.

            “People often stop after they finish completing something.”

            And you’re done with (sorry – you’ve finished completing – reason? Good to know.

            “I’ll stand on what each of us wrote.”

            Well, no, you’re standing on a mischaracterization of what I wrote, which is not the same thing. “Remind me when the first time was” was a gentle way of saying “I don’t recall saying any such thing; can you point out where you think I said it, because either I miscommunicated, you misread, or you invented.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Well, no, you’re standing on a mischaracterization of what I wrote, which is not the same thing.”

            Anyone reading any of these comments can read all of them.

          • hiernonymous

            Yes, but that won’t tell them which of my comments you interpreted as “all religions and cultures are basically the same.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yes, but that won’t tell them which of my comments…”

            You have no idea what I’ll respond to. I’m just limiting the time you try to waste asking redundant questions. When reasonable people ask reasonable questions I eventually find time.

            That’s your view and clearly I’m willing to accept that “risk.”

            “…you interpreted as “all religions and cultures are basically the same.”

            You deny salient, crucial distinctions about Islam and the implications for understanding the violent (and stealth) Islamic jihad we see today. You further try to create equivalence by examples that obscure the issues rather than add anything useful beyond leftist moral equivalency mentality. You also seem unable to learn from the discourse.

            If someone else comes along asking for clarity, that’s a new situation entirely and it’s more than likely that I’ll try to accommodate him in that case.

          • hiernonymous

            “You deny salient, crucial distinctions about Islam and the implications for understanding the violent (and stealth) Islamic jihad we see today.”

            You’ve skipped a step or twelve in leaping from “you don’t agree with me about what distinctions between Christianity and Islam are crucial and salient” to “you have said that all religions and cultures are basically the same.”

            Presumably, you’re able to spot the glaring gap in that logic. It would be charitable to chalk up your comment to hyperbole, but your subsequent comments (“I stand on…”) suggest that you meant it exactly as written. Heck, one could even assert (as I have not) that there are NO meaningful differences between Islam and Christianity without coming close to contending that “all religions and cultures are basically the same.”

            “You also seem unable to learn from the discourse.”

            Posturing is not particularly instructive.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Posturing is not particularly instructive.”

            More clearly: I’ve already become convinced that trying to instruct you is a waste of time.

          • hiernonymous

            Excellent conclusion. I’ve seen nothing in your posts that indicates that you’re in a position to instruct. If you focus on articulating your own arguments and supporting them, you’ll accomplish a great deal more.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Try to do a bit more research before taking on losing positions.

            Start here:

            http://www.raymondibrahim.com/

          • hiernonymous

            Thanks, but the day that I consider a link to a web site ‘research’ is the day I invalidate the last two decades of my professional and academic life.

            I’m sure you mean well.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Thanks, but the day that I consider a link to a web site ‘research’ is the day I invalidate the last two decades of my professional and academic life. ”

            Ah, so I can’t fool you. You realize it’s impossible to publish valid research on the Internet.

            Foiled again.

            What will I do now? I guess I just will never get that horse to drink that “spoiled” water. The horse always wins that battle.

          • hiernonymous

            “You realize it’s impossible to publish valid research on the Internet.”

            Not at all. I realize that publishing a link is not ‘research.’

            “What will I do now?”

            Stop taking the lazy way out and make your own arguments? Argue instead of posture? The possibilities are endless.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’ve already concluded presenting my case that you need to perform a lot more research about Islam.

            I’m just perhaps better at managing my time than you are. I don’t feel any need to meet your expectations.

            “More to the point, tossing a link is neither argument nor instruction.”

            It depends on which link or not? The “link toss” in this case would have led you to plenty of research that would have at least helped you understand the arguments made here that you dismiss as xenophobia. It’s more like you have fact-o-phobia.

            http://www.raymondibrahim.com/about/

            http://www.raymondibrahim.com/category/study-corner/

            But then again, I’m sure you can’t get past that firewall. So don’t’ even bother looking.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’ve already concluded presenting my case that you need to perform a lot more research about Islam.”

            That was a case, was it?

            Oh, well. Having devoted the bulk of my academic and professional life to analysis of the Middle East, I’m afraid I don’t have time for “a lot more” research about Islam.

            “The “link toss” in this case would have led you to plenty of research that would have at least helped you understand the arguments made here that you dismiss as xenophobia.”

            The link toss was to a collection of articles by Raymond Ibrahim. If you wanted to provide a link that provided an explanation of an argument you’d made, you’d have been better served by linking to a particular article. If you were offering the link as a source of ‘education’ on the Middle East and Islam, linking to Ibrahim’s site would be like linking to Daniel Pipes’ site. That is to say, both are reasonably well-informed on the Middle East, and both have such strong idealogical biases that they make a poor first stop for trying to get anything like an objective view of the Middle East.

            “But then again, I’m sure you can’t get past that firewall. So don’t’ even bother looking.”

            Not sure what this is even supposed to contribute, if anything. Is it a double-dog-dare?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The link toss was to a collection of articles by Raymond Ibrahim. If you wanted to provide a link that provided an explanation of an argument you’d made, you’d have been better served by linking to a particular article.”

            That was my first impulse but I realized that you need so much work that it would be better to find your own way on some of the topics you wanted to explore first. Any of the articles as far as I could tell would have been useful for you.

            If you’re a product of “Middle Eastern Studies,” all the more need for you to read every article from Raymond that you can grasp.

            If you want I’ll give it some thought to see if there is a suggested starting point:

            http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/how-dare-you-the-supremacist-nature-of-muslim-grievances/

          • hiernonymous

            “If you’re a product of “Middle Eastern Studies,””

            I’ll be happy to share my background, education, training, and professional experience on the Middle East, if you consider it relevant and care to start with your own. Otherwise, such comments are pointless.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “if you consider it relevant”

            Evidently you do. I already knew where you got your ideas from.

          • hiernonymous

            Well, you fancy you did, at any rate. If you prefer speculation to knowledge, carry on.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s not speculation to note that your ideas are rooted in Soviet propaganda campaigns, which the Jihadis often employ as well.

            It’s all about victims and grievances and nobody is accountable for failure other than the USA or the West, depending on the target of the smear. It doesn’t matter which institution you got your indoctrination from.

            Tell me again how Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount is a legitimate grievance for inciting murder and mayhem, though you didn’t even mention the reaction. You only mention the visit as if this is not proof of my position but instead supports your position.

            http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=deranged

          • hiernonymous

            “It’s not speculation to note that your ideas are rooted in Soviet propaganda campaigns…”

            Apparently, I’ve been taking you too seriously.

            “It’s all about victims and grievances and nobody is accountable for failure other than the USA or the West…”

            That’s petulance, not an intellectually honest characterization of the positions I’ve offered. Interesting.

            “Tell me again how Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount is a legitimate grievance…”

            Sure. Sharon was an extremist politician, associated with hardline stances against the Palestinians and whom the Israeli government’s own Kahan Commission found bore personal responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacres. Sharon’s visit wasn’t just an ordinary citizen visiting an ordinary site; it was one of the most polarizing figures in the Arab-Israeli conflict visiting one of Islam’s holiest sites. That itself is provocative, but there was further political subtext. Sharon visited with a massive security element, and Likud’s own spokesman acknowledged that the underlying purpose of the visit was to make a statement that the Temple Mount was going to remain under permanent Israeli control, a position contrary to the site’s legal status and certainly in fundamental opposition to the Palestinian political position.

            “…though you didn’t even mention the reaction…”

            An action’s status as a grievance is not dependent on the rationality or appropriateness of the response. (Sharon, of course, hoped to provoke violence; it played into his plans to achieve power as the security candidate.)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I thought objective facts mattered.”

            And specific last leg sources of indoctrination matter less than their origins.

            “Sharon was an extremist politician, associated with hardline stances against the Palestinians and whom the Israeli government’s own Kahan Commission found bore personal responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacres. Sharon’s visit wasn’t just an ordinary citizen visiting an ordinary site; it was one of the most polarizing figures in the Arab-Israeli conflict visiting one of Islam’s holiest sites.”

            He wasn’t an ordinary citizen (as if that matters). He was a leading politician that was often demonized for doing his job. Leftists assisted Jihadis in demonizing this war hero.

            Funny how Arafat the terrorist murderer can go anywhere he wants until he finally gets busted with a shipload of arms and lies directly to the USA about it but if Sharon visits the THE MOST HOLY Jewish site on the planet (that gets referred to by dupes as “One of Islam’s Holiest” sites because why? Because a tactically crucial victory mosque remains there) then it is Sharon who is causing madness and mayhem with jihadis rising up and try to kill people and destroy property. Yes, always the fault of whoever make the Jihadis sad. And don’t forget that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam, because this also makes them sad. We must arrange our lives according to what makes Jihadis sad. Facts don’t actually matter. It’s official victim status that matters.

            If only you understood the true lessons of your narratives. By the way, we have many Jihadis who have admitted that Sharon’s visit was a phony pretext and that the rebellion had been planned, awaiting for some pretext or another. Using this as an example, and the absurd bias you use in discussing it marks you as a dupe or a jihadi. Based on other testimony, you’re most likely a dupe of Middle Eastern Studies narratives that are derived from Soviet and Islamic colonial deception campaigns. Oh, you might have a few facts right. But it’s all about the victim narratives for you and your comrades, as you have proved in all of your presentations but never so clear as when you cite the Sharon visit itself (and not the reaction to it) on “One of Islam’s holiest sites” as victimizing anyone.

            You continue to show your deranged anti-American, anti-Western bias even while perhaps considering yourself loyal to Western culture. That’s what indoctrination can do to people that can’t manage to escape the cultural bubble they’re stuck in.

            Literally every word you utter must be taken under advisement. You’re not trustworthy even if you believe your own BS.

            The Temple Mount is not “Islamic.” It IS evidence of the colonial nature of Islam as well as the hypocrisy of anyone who propagates their phony victim narratives. But for you it’s just the third or the fifth or something “most important Islamic holy site” and soon New York will be the eight most important Islamic “Holy Site” and all of that garbage.

            I mean it’s obvious that I’m not buying your party line but you can’t even deviate a word from it. The sign of a true believer. You make it sound like a serial murderer escaped from jail and then drove a tank through the Kaba with the support of the Israeli government. Even that would not be rational justification for the Second Intifada.

            Poor poor Jihadis.

            Evil sharia rebels. Don’t they know Allah will reign supreme throughout the world? How dare they!

          • hiernonymous

            “You make it sound like a serial murderer escaped from jail and then
            drove a tank through the Kaba with the support of the Israeli
            government. Even that would not be rational justification for the Second
            Intifada.”

            You should consider drinking decaf for a bit. While that was a spectacular rant, and covered a pretty impressive spectrum of informal fallacies (did you miss any of the ad hominem variations?), a couple of points are worth addressing:

            1) Nobody has “justified” the Second Intifada. Noting that Sharon’s visit was a legitimate grievance in no way implies an endorsement of how that grievance was then taken up. Your comment had been that Muslim grievances were largely imaginary, and I was pointing out a number of real grievances. One might argue that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was wrong without thereby endorsing the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

            2) Arafat might well have been planning another intifada independent of Sharon’s actions. That wouldn’t make Sharon’s actions any less provocative, unethical, cynical, or wrong – it would just mean that Arafat was also provocative, unethical, cynical, or wrong.

            “Funny how Arafat the terrorist murderer can go anywhere he wants…”

            At this point, I can’t even begin to guess what you’re raving about. Arafat’s dead. I couldn’t stop him from going anywhere even if he were still alive. Nor is it clear how anything in the conversation to this point would have called for anyone to evaluate or discuss Arafat’s actions. Ironically, Arafat was a secular terrorist murderer, and the PLO was a secular terrorist organization.

            The Dome of the Rock is the third most holy site in Islam. It’s also the most holy site in Judaism. Both of those statements are true. It’s the former status that’s relevant to Sharon’s actions as a grievance in relationship to the Palestinians. It should be possible to discuss that without a hysterical response about New York becoming a Muslim holy site. Again, your post seems mighty long on emotion and short on rationality for someone billing himself as “objective facts matter.”

            “Oh, you might have a few facts right.”

            Oh, you noticed that part, did you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Listen you unhinged lunatic, Sharon was not visiting “the third holiest site of Islam.” Which even if we should care about that, is a small part of the Temple Mount that he did visit. Which is the most holy Jewish site, a fact you failed to mention.

            You’re a propagandist. The fact that you apparently do this blindly just erodes your credibility further.

            “1) Nobody has “justified” the Second Intifada. Noting that Sharon’s visit was a legitimate grievance in no way implies an endorsement of how that grievance was then taken up.”

            Then why do you try to present deceptive narratives that serve that end?

            And no, it was not a “legitimate grievance.” It was “legitimately” offered as a grievance, and based on deception and bizarre standards of what we should expect from people that pretend to sign peace treaties with us.

            Ever hear the phrase “bad faith?” It was a pretext and offered in bad faith as a grievance. If you want to call that legitimate, that’s noted and it just helps calibrate your point of view that much more clearly.

          • hiernonymous

            “Listen you unhinged lunatic…”

            You seem to be responding emotionally, not “objectively.” Perhaps a bit of a break is in order?

            “Which even if we should care about that, is a small part of the Temple Mount that he did visit. Which is the most holy Jewish site, a fact you failed to mention.”

            In my post immediately preceding this claim:

            The Dome of the Rock is the third most holy site in Islam. It’s also the most holy site in Judaism. Both of those statements are true.

            (emphasis added)

            “Then why do you try to present deceptive narratives that serve that end?”

            I don’t. You still seem unable to grasp that a disproportionate response to a grievance does not invalidate the grievance. If you spit in my face and I shoot you, my disproportionate and unreasonable response does not somehow render spitting in my face a reasonable action. It was still wrong, and still a grievance; my improper response is a separate action, to be judged on its own merits. Both actions would be deserving of censure.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In my post immediately preceding this claim:”

            But you wrote that only after I corrected you and slammed you for your deranged characterizations. You originally wrote:

            “Sure. Sharon was an extremist politician, associated with hardline stances against the Palestinians and whom the Israeli government’s own Kahan Commission found bore personal responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacres. Sharon’s visit wasn’t just an ordinary citizen visiting an ordinary site; it was one of the most polarizing figures in the Arab-Israeli conflict visiting one of Islam’s holiest sites. That itself is provocative, but there was further political subtext. Sharon visited with a massive security element, and Likud’s own spokesman acknowledged that the underlying purpose of the visit was to make a statement that the Temple Mount was going to remain under permanent Israeli control, a position contrary to the site’s legal status and certainly in fundamental opposition to the Palestinian political position.”

            OK..so if I give you the benefit of the doubt, you’re a true believer dupe that “uses the force” to come up with your narrow anti-Western declarations BUT you really mean well and consider yourself to be objective. You FEEL objective. Great.

            I mean I didn’t even get to half of the issues. You cited the perfidious claims as if they were uncontroversial and you used it as an example of a “legitimate grievance.”

            Holy cow, you are a sore loser.

          • hiernonymous

            “But you wrote that only after I corrected you and slammed you for your deranged characterizations.”

            Your obsession with posturing is damaging your reading and writing. The site’s status as a Jewish holy site was irrelevant to the original context; when you complained about its omission, I was more than happy to confirm that, yes, the site is Judaism’s most holy site. I wouldn’t characterize that as a ‘correction,’ particularly given that our positions don’t appear to coincide. You still seem to be saying that its status within Islam is unimportant or chimerical, whereas I’d stick with what I wrote above: to wit, that the site is holy to both. In the context of Sharon’s visit as a provocation, it’s the site’s status within Islam that is operational, and there’s no inconsistency with either of my posts.

            “Holy cow, you are a sore loser.”

            So you keep telling me.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You still seem unable to grasp that a disproportionate response to a grievance does not invalidate the grievance. If you spit in my face and I shoot you, my disproportionate and unreasonable response does not somehow render spitting in my face a reasonable action. It was still wrong, and still a grievance; my improper response is a separate action, to be judged on its own merits. Both actions would be deserving of censure.”

            1) I didn’t deny that it was “a grievance.” I claimed that it was presented in bad faith and was illegitimate.

            2) Your presentation was extremely biased in order to portray this grievance such that someone might find reasonable or acceptable. Just a coincidence we’re supposed to think.

            We’re supposed to imagine that Sharon was put in deep freeze for almost 2 decades after getting caught murdering people and then when he returns the first thing he does is storm the “Islamic holy site,” the THIRD MOST HOLY!!! FOR NO REASON! Just to “spit in their faces.” Just to provoke violence! You more or less said as much.

            Then in your example you use the analogy, “If you spit in my face and I shoot you…” but again you try to place Sharon at the beginning of the “conflict.” We are supposed to think of Sharon as the “spitter.” Sharon started it.

            The fact is that Sharon went to visit THE MOST HOLY SITE in the Jewish world, located where he resides as a citizen, to demonstrate that he did not agree with the previous policies of appeasement nor did he agree with Ehud Barak’s over-the-top offer to Arafat to divide Jerusalem or to bend over backwards even further vis-a-vis Temple Mount access or sovereignty.

            So who started this? Sharon is placed in your narrative as the provocateur when in reality all he was doing was peacefully demonstrate that in his view, abject appeasement is not the route to peace. It’s the route to submission if you live in the middle east.

            But “extremist” Jews are not allowed to show their faces. At some point the same limits are applied to all infidels as Islamic sovereignty grows.

            The spirit of Neville Chamberlain lives on.

          • hiernonymous

            “We’re supposed to imagine that Sharon was put in deep freeze for almost 2 decades after getting caught murdering people and then when he returns the first thing he does is storm the “Islamic holy site,” the THIRD MOST HOLY!!! FOR NO REASON!”

            Who suggested that it was for no reason? (Pardon – “FOR NO REASON!”) I thought I’d articulated Sharon’s reasons, and they were very savvy indeed.

            “We are supposed to think of Sharon as the “spitter.” Sharon started it.”

            Sharon started what? I offered the visit as an example of a grievance, not the underlying cause of all problems Israeli-Palestinian. Your penchant for hysteria and hyperbole is interfering with your understanding.

            “The fact is that Sharon went to visit THE MOST HOLY SITE in the Jewish world, located where he resides as a citizen, to demonstrate that he did not agree with the previous policies of appeasement…”

            According to a Likud Party spokesman at the time, he went in order to deliver the message that Israel would not negotiate on a matter of intense disagreement – that it intended to use its power position to dictate the outcome of the dispute. If you’re arguing that Sharon had the legal right to do so, that’s not in dispute. The issue is that the message, the messenger, and the manner of the message’s delivery were all deliberately provocative, and constituted a legitimate grievance for the Palestinians.

            “The spirit of Neville Chamberlain lives on.”

            Well, certainly, the example of Chamberlain is routinely invoked by those who are advocating a confrontational position with their bugbear-du-jour.

            Though even the example of Munich is probably not as clear-cut as many who casually invoke it assume. Britain was in the late stages of a re-armament program in 1938 that would have placed her at a significant immediate disadvantage against the Germans in the event of an immediate war. British rearmament was inspired by the German rearmament program, and lagged behind it. One notable example was the Spitfire, the fighter that would re-establish British parity in the air – and the first production model of which did not roll off the lines until the middle of 1938.

            In short, the shallow interpretation of Chamberlain was that he was a naif hoping to ‘appease’ Hitler; another is that he was playing for time, realizing that Britain was 1-2 years out from the culmination of its air and naval modernization programs. Not that the analogy has any direct bearing on our conversation, but it’s interesting that someone who insists that he understands the complexities of international relations would resort to such a banality.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The issue is that the message, the messenger, and the manner of the message’s delivery were all deliberately provocative, and constituted a legitimate grievance for the Palestinians.”

            It was a response to specific and highly offensive series of political maneuvers by Arafat. If context is everything, your statements are nothing because you abuse the facts by selecting context to serve an agenda rather than to illuminate understanding of any kind of objective view.

            You are a propagandist trying to pose as an objective analyst. It’s not working.

            And in the larger context of our conversation you tried to turn an example that perfectly illustrates my point in to something that would instead argue against my presentation about perfidious claims.

            To continue the joke by acting like Arafat is clearly a secular nationalist as if there is no controversy…you make a joke out of any suggestion that you can discuss any of this objectively. I understand why some naive individuals might view Arafat as secular, because that was his pose for the West. You seem to be totally unfamiliar or in denial regarding the vast evidence that he was the quintessential militant Islamic supremacist jihadi.

          • hiernonymous

            “You are a propagandist trying to pose as an objective analyst. It’s not working.”

            One hopes that you research your other subjects a bit more thoroughly before offering public opinions.

            “You seem to be totally unfamiliar or in denial regarding the vast evidence that he was the quintessential militant Islamic supremacist jihadi.”

            I am, I’m afraid. Completely and sadly unfamiliar with “the vast evidence that he was the quintessential militant Islamic supremacist jihadi.” Perhaps you could point me to this vast trove of evidence? I’m always willing to learn, and so far, I’m a slave to conventional academic and military scholarship and analysis when it comes to President Arafat.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “At this point, I can’t even begin to guess what you’re raving about. Arafat’s dead. I couldn’t stop him from going anywhere even if he were still alive. Nor is it clear how anything in the conversation to this point would have called for anyone to evaluate or discuss Arafat’s actions. ”

            You are quite the propagandist. Any honest and intelligent person would understand and respond to the obvious challenges regarding standards and expectations.

            Arafat secular? We’re not talking about personal faith or what posture anyone takes before Western media and dupes like you. He unquestionably used Islamic texts and doctrines for his guiding ethos, citing Islamic texts a great many times, occasionally even letting it slip out talking to Western media.

            Arafat secular? Fine but he was also the quintessential modern Jihadi. We’re not talking about personal faith, which I guess might be interesting at some point, but the man used Islamic texts and doctrines to guide his life mission and to martial resources.

            And he probably did believe in Allah. But not according to his English language business cards. Well that’s a relief.

            I hope you don’t have a teaching role anywhere. A student taking such positions is sad but not shocking. A teacher presenting such a naive, one dimensional view derived from uncritical acceptance of the ridiculous propaganda served up to naive Westerners, well that’s tragic. It’s like having another Rashid Khalidi walking around. And he’s a liar that worked for the PLO trying to convince naive Westerners that they were merely a secular nationalist movement.

            Sure. You can tell by all the effort that went in to preparations for running the “Palestinian” state. You know, all those secular governmental institutions that states need. Like militias and front organizations for bilking stupid Western governments.

          • hiernonymous

            “Any honest and intelligent person would understand and respond to the obvious challenges regarding standards and expectations.”

            You resort to this construction with depressing regularity. It’s lazy and logically empty. If I were to respond on your level, I suppose the obvious rejoinder would be “how would you know what ‘any honest and intelligent person’ would do?” Just make your arguments and save the preening for the peacocks.

            “Arafat secular? We’re not talking about personal faith…”

            That’s right, we’re talking about the PLO, a secular terrorist organization. Arafat was a nationalist, not a religious fanatic, and the PLO probably got more inspiration and doctrine from Marx than Allah. I have no doubt that you can find the occasional religious language, but not in its underlying doctrine and nothing to indicate a root religious motivation. By way of comparison, we often referred to WWII as a “crusade” without implying thereby that we were trying to extend Christianity by arms. In fact, most young Palestinians who pursue a more religious course are attracted to Hamas, not Fatah.

            “Arafat secular? Fine but he was also the quintessential modern Jihadi.”

            You can’t mean that sentence and also insist that a “quintessential modern Jihadi” has his root motivation in the Qur’an.

            “I hope you don’t have a teaching role anywhere. A student taking such positions is sad but not shocking. A teacher presenting such a naive, one dimensional view derived from uncritical acceptance of the ridiculous propaganda served up to naive Westerners, well that’s tragic.”

            Who are you – what is your profession, what is your background – that your opinion on the matter is of any consequence?

            ” And he’s a liar that worked for the PLO trying to convince naive Westerners that they were merely a secular nationalist movement.”

            And here we are today, with Fatah more or less in charge of the West Bank, behaving very much like a secular nationalist movement. How about that?

            “You can tell by all the effort that went in to preparations for running the “Palestinian” state.”

            Your argument is unclear. Is this an accurate outline of what you are trying to say?:
            1. A secular liberation movement would have prepared for running the Palestinian state; a religious organization would not.
            2. PLO did not prepare to run the Palestinian state.
            3. Therefore, the PLO was a religious organization.

            Is that a fair summary of your argument? If not, could you make it explicit yourself?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You can’t mean that sentence and also insist that a “quintessential modern Jihadi” has his root motivation in the Qur’an.”

            He’s as secular as one can get while also being a pious totalitarian Muslim. Think of secularism as a mode of Islamic totalitarianism. That’s the secularism of Arafat. Which means it’s deceptive to describe him as secular to a naive audience. You seem to swallow the BS or for some reason have no problem peddling it.

          • hiernonymous

            “Think of secularism as a mode of Islamic totalitarianism.”

            Why would anyone think any such thing?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Why would anyone think any such thing?”

            That’s the only way I can make Arafat “secular” for you.

            Denial is a very powerful emotion.

          • hiernonymous

            “That’s the only way I can make Arafat “secular” for you.”

            Did you think you needed to make Arafat secular for me? What an interesting set of assumptions.

            “Denial is a very powerful emotion.”

            In the sense you appear to intend, denial is a psychological defense mechanism, not an emotion.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Arafat was a nationalist, not a religious fanatic, and the PLO probably got more inspiration and doctrine from Marx than Allah. I have no doubt that you can find the occasional religious language, but not in its underlying doctrine and nothing to indicate a root religious motivation.”

            Even if one were serious about this possibility, you have no reason to present it with such confidence. You’re peddling the deception as if it’s the only possible narrative.

            He took the public posture of a “nationalist liberator” because that’s what the communists taught him would work in manipulating naive Westerners.

            Anyone that analyzes what he actually did rather than only what he said to Western reporters and institutions would realize how absurd your position is. His tactics were derived from Soviet advice and propaganda. His motives were 100% derived from Islamic imperialism and Islamic texts. He wasn’t even native to the locale they supposedly intend to build a state on. They were NEVER PRO nationalist, they’re anti-nationalist with a focus on destroying any non-Muslim sovereign on the “Arab Peninsula.”

            “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

            Free of infidels who dare to suppose they can subvert sharia. Failure to submit is considered a subversion of Islam. That’s what motivated him in his life mission, which was not about building anything. It was about destruction of those who failed to submit.

          • hiernonymous

            “His motives were 100% derived from Islamic imperialism and Islamic texts.”

            Eh? Source? Support? Where’d you get this?

            You seem to be confusing “Palestinian” and “Muslim.” The PLO comprised several member organizations – you might want to do some research on the leadership of the PFLP before posting this sort of silliness.

            “Free of infidels who dare to suppose they can subvert sharia.”

            Is that what Naif Hawatma and George Habash were fighting for?

            “Even if one were serious about this possibility, you have no reason to present it with such confidence. You’re peddling the deception as if it’s the only possible narrative.”

            Arafat’s not exactly an obscure figure, and it’s not difficult to compare his stated goals to his actions. If you believe you have some compelling reason to insist that Arafat was a closet religious fanatic, feel free to lay your reasons out.

            “They were NEVER PRO nationalist, they’re anti-nationalist with a focus on destroying any non-Muslim sovereign on the “Arab Peninsula.””

            Of course they were nationalists. What may be confusing you is that in the timeframe the PLO was established, the dominant force in Arab politics was Gamal abd al Nasser, who was actively pushing the idea of Arab nationalism – that is, he eventual stated goal was a single Arab state. This is not remotely linked to the religious idea of the Caliphate – Nasser was a secular leader, and the Ummah is intended to encompass all Muslims, not simply Arabs. Nasser had even pulled off a short-lived unification of Syria and Egypt in pursuit of this goal (as the UAR), and had hoped to bring Iraq into the fold. The PLO’s founding charter is influenced by Nasser’s ideas, but it is, nonetheless, nationalist in conception.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “An action’s status as a grievance is not dependent on the rationality or appropriateness of the response.”

            Yes, but our conversation was precisely about rational and reasonable grievances versus contrived pretexts and irrational behavior caused fundamentally by Islamic exhortations related to Islamic sovereignty and relations with infidels.

            “(Sharon, of course, hoped to provoke violence; it played into his plans to achieve power as the security candidate.)”

            What else would you expect from an evil Jooh?

            Allah akbar to you too.

          • hiernonymous

            “What else would you expect from an evil Jooh?”

            What an irrational comment. Was antisemitism the root of the Kahan Commission’s findings against Sharon, as well?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Not necessarily, but appeasement and antisemitism are often behind the need to blow it out of proportion and present it totally out of context as you do.

            Oh my. An Israeli commission found him indirectly accountable in some way. Obviously the man is satanic. Why was he allowed to go free? Why not crucify him at the local mosque?

            You do agree that he’s evil, don’t you? That’s how you characterize him.

          • hiernonymous

            “Not necessarily, but appeasement and antisemitism are often behind the need to blow it out of proportion and present it totally out of context as you do.”

            “…are often behind…” are weasel words. If you want to make an accusation, make it and support it. Given that the Kahan Commission did find that Sharon bore personal responsiblity for failing to perform his duties properly in regard to Sabra and Shatila, and that his association with those massacres was very much part of the incendiary nature of his visit, it’s hard to understand how you could argue that I’ve either blown the event ‘out of proportion’ or taken it “out of context.” Nothing that Sharon was a polarizing figure who took a provocative action is not antisemitic. Did you have a rational reason for intimating as much, or was that simply another ad hominem?

            “Oh my. An Israeli commission found him indirectly accountable in some way. Obviously the man is satanic. Why was he allowed to go free? Why not crucify him at the local mosque?”

            The commission recommended that he be dismissed as Defense Minister, and following protests by Israelis, he resigned. I’m not sure that qualifies as “Satanic,” but that was your (rather shrill) characterization, not mine.

            “You do agree that he’s evil, don’t you? That’s how you characterize him.”

            That’s a very different question from “what else would you expect from an evil Jooh?” The latter was simply a petulant and irrational comment.

            I think Sharon has done some evil things. He’s also done things that I wouldn’t characterize as ‘evil,’ but were self-aggrandizing to the point of violating his duties. An early such example occurred in the Yom Kippur War, when Sharon was ordered to seize a bridgehead across the Suez Canal and hold it in order for a fresh follow-on unit to pass through and exploit the breakthrough. Sharon violated his orders because he knew that being the commander to penetrate past the Suez would be a politically valuable asset in postwar Israel, and he already had strong political ambitions. As a retired military officer myself, I’m not sympathetic to officers who jeopardize the mission for their own gain.

            I believe Sharon showed similar disregard for the good of his country while engineering his election as PM. I think the man’s brilliant, and showed real political savvy in manipulating both Arafat and his own media, but the path he took cost lives and ultimately resulted in the strenthening of Hamas’s position in the PA (and Hamas, unlike Fatah, is a religiously-oriented organization).

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Commission did find that Sharon bore personal responsiblity for failing to perform his duties properly”

            Let’s examine the text. Not that it matters much. He was corrected by a official government institution. Why isn’t that enough? Was justice not served those decades prior?

            And why further try to demonize him for somehow violating Muslim sensibilities when he went to the JEWISH holy site that happened to have a victory mosque on a subsection of it that was not even on the itinerary? And you characterize this purely as an offense to Islam as if he was not in Israel but invading the “third Kaba?” Context means a lot. You lie with context. You are a liar even if somehow you are used to getting away with it. A half truth is a lie when it draws or is intended to draw the audience away from the truth.

            Sharon’s an offensive person. He had no reason to be there. He did it to provoke the poor oppressed secular jihadis. There was no legitimate reason for Sharon to be there and this was a legitimate grievance Muslims acted upon.

            You are so full of BS. Can you really not be aware of how weak your arguments are after the full relevant context is revealed?

            Some controversial findings from decades prior, crucial to our understanding. Arafat who? Camp David Clinton parameters rejected? What could that have to do with it?

            You’ve cited an ideal example to prove my point about contrived grievances and perfidy and now you’re desperately trying to un-lose the argument.

          • hiernonymous

            “And why further try to demonize him for somehow violating Muslim sensibilities when he went to the JEWISH holy site that happened to have a victory mosque on a subsection of it that was not even on the itinerary?”

            Trying to argue that the site is solely Jewish, and that the Muslim attachment to the site is illegitimate, is to assume as a given a matter still very much a matter of contention. One need not endorse the Muslim position to recognize that taking a public action intended to demonstrate that Israel will not negotiate the matter in good faith, but will use force to secure its position, is likely to spark protest.

            “You are a liar even if somehow you are used to getting away with it. A half truth is a lie when it draws or is intended to draw the audience away from the truth.”

            You resort increasingly to ad hominem. It’s unseemly.

            “You are so full of BS. Can you really not be aware of how weak your arguments are after the full relevant context is revealed?”

            “Revealed” is a telling and appropriate verb; despite your nom d’foehn of “objectivefactsmatter,” your posts seem more to function on the level of revealed truth, and your display of churlishness when the message is not accepted as packaged Truth is somewhat reminiscent of Luther’s anger at the Jews when they did not respond to the Reformation by embracing Christ as their Lord and Savior. You’ve offered your opinion that Sharon was within his rights, and that the Temple Mount is Jewish; that provides a good understanding of your point of view, but it’s not the “full relevant context” of the events surrounding his visit to the site.

            “Some controversial findings from decades prior, crucial to our understanding.”

            Actually, prior events are crucial to our understanding of who Sharon was and how his actions were perceived. Jane Fonda visited Hanoi in the ’60s, yet even today, if she were to engineer a prominent visit to Arlington National Cemetery, it would spark a firestorm of protest from veterans and their supporters – her earlier actions have defined her strongly in the context of that situation.

            “…and now you’re desperately trying to un-lose the argument.”

            You decided I lost, eh? How demoralizing.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Trying to argue that the site is solely Jewish, and that the Muslim attachment to the site is illegitimate, is to assume as a given a matter still very much a matter of contention.”

            I merely implied that one could argue the mosque is not significant but in your example the mosque is not significant at all because he didn’t visit it. He didn’t defile the mosque that defiled the Temple Mount. But even if he did, your narrative would still be grossly deceptive.

            Your narratives direct people to think that it’s primarily in not exclusively a holy Islamic site, possibly also referred to as the Temple Mount, located somewhere over there, that was defiled by the dirty, evil, perfidious Jooh. You make careful notes of every alleged reason to attack America and or the West but act completely naive and totally deny all evidence that Islamic Jihadis are actively trying to deceive the West in an effort to destroy Israel as the primary road block to the regional and then the global caliphate. And when caught, even in retreat you go in to damage control mode to maintain as much of the facade as you think possible.

            You are either completely deceived beyond help, or you are personally in on the deception campaign.

          • hiernonymous

            “He didn’t defile the mosque that defiled the Temple Mount.”

            You might want to review the condition of the site on ‘Umar’s arrival in Jerusalem.

            “Your narratives direct people to think that it’s primarily in not exclusively a holy Islamic site, possibly also referred to as the Temple Mount, located somewhere over there, that was defiled by the dirty, evil, perfidious Jooh.”

            Incoherent and bizarre. “The dirty, evil, perfidious Jooh?” Where do you get this stuff?

            “You make careful notes of every alleged reason to attack America and or the West but act completely naive and totally deny all evidence that Islamic Jihadis are actively trying to deceive the West in an effort to destroy Israel as the primary road block to the regional and then the global caliphate.”

            One wonders what you’ve been reading and mistaking for my posts. I’ve done neither; you claimed that Muslims have little or no legitimate grievances, and I offered a few of them – hardly “every alleged reason.”

            “And when caught, even in retreat you go in to damage control mode to maintain as much of the facade as you think possible.”

            Your take on the metaconversation is fascinating, no doubt, but has nothing to do with the topic.

            “You are either completely deceived beyond help, or you are personally in on the deception campaign.”

            Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Again, your simplistic thinking leads to simpleminded and wrongheaded ‘solutions.’”

            I honestly don’t recall ever reading anything useful towards understanding or solving any of these problems from you. But my memory is imperfect. Or I might simply have missed it. Perhaps.

          • defcon 4

            Four footed ancestors are more your speed than mine Ahmed.

          • defcon 4

            Yeshua frequently ranted and raved about killing Jews. After all bloodshed and violence were cornerstones of his ideology. I’m sure it was a popular topic in a Yerushalem that was probably more than 90% Jewish. I think you should try quoting the genocidal hadith in Yerushalem today.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            He’s as deranged as any other leftists but simply with a calmer approach than usual. That’s his role in the disinformation bureau; mask extreme leftism in a reasonable sounding discourse.