<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sharia on Tour</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=sharia-on-tour</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 04:17:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Texas Patriot</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5321496</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Texas Patriot]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5321496</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As Ronald Reagan said, “Trust but verify.”  ;-)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As Ronald Reagan said, “Trust but verify.”  <img src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif" alt=";-)" class="wp-smiley" /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: defcon 4</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5321476</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[defcon 4]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2013 20:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5321476</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Before or after they have the knife to your throat?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Before or after they have the knife to your throat?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5319998</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Dec 2013 01:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5319998</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Five posts back, I explicitly invited your clarification of one of these components, and you&#039;ve spent the ensuing time, not clarifying your point, but discussing  shortcomings in my patriotism, politics, understanding, and debating style.   

&quot;You often completely mischaracterize the &quot;component&quot; as you reject it.&quot;
 
If you see that as a bad thing, this conversation has not been a total waste.  Still, it would be better if you remembered that I am not the subject of the conversation.  Unless, of coure, &lt;i&gt;that&lt;/i&gt; is the structure I&#039;m failing to understand...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Five posts back, I explicitly invited your clarification of one of these components, and you&#8217;ve spent the ensuing time, not clarifying your point, but discussing  shortcomings in my patriotism, politics, understanding, and debating style.   </p>
<p>&#8220;You often completely mischaracterize the &#8220;component&#8221; as you reject it.&#8221;</p>
<p>If you see that as a bad thing, this conversation has not been a total waste.  Still, it would be better if you remembered that I am not the subject of the conversation.  Unless, of coure, <i>that</i> is the structure I&#8217;m failing to understand&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5319916</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5319916</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;You can&#039;t construct a sound argument out of flawed components.&quot;



You reject the components prematurely as not fitting, not relevant, not possible etc. all before you should even be certain you&#039;re qualified. You often completely mischaracterize the &quot;component&quot; as you reject it.


It&#039;s a clear agenda that you have to destroy the structure before understanding it, whether or not you truly understand some or any of the components.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You can&#8217;t construct a sound argument out of flawed components.&#8221;</p>
<p>You reject the components prematurely as not fitting, not relevant, not possible etc. all before you should even be certain you&#8217;re qualified. You often completely mischaracterize the &#8220;component&#8221; as you reject it.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a clear agenda that you have to destroy the structure before understanding it, whether or not you truly understand some or any of the components.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5319681</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5319681</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You can&#039;t construct a sound argument out of flawed components. 

&quot;We&#039;re going in circles because rather than trying to test the developing theories rationally you kick the pieces apart before trying to assemble them coherently.&quot;
 
It&#039;s not clear what this bit of vagueness is even supposed to mean.  If you have an argument to make, make it.  It must withstand two kinds of scrutiny:  its overall structure must be sound, and its components must be accurate.  A failure in either is a fatal flaw.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You can&#8217;t construct a sound argument out of flawed components. </p>
<p>&#8220;We&#8217;re going in circles because rather than trying to test the developing theories rationally you kick the pieces apart before trying to assemble them coherently.&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not clear what this bit of vagueness is even supposed to mean.  If you have an argument to make, make it.  It must withstand two kinds of scrutiny:  its overall structure must be sound, and its components must be accurate.  A failure in either is a fatal flaw.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5319538</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 07:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5319538</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;It seems simpler to you because you haven&#039;t bothered yourself with it to the same extent.&quot;



Sure, in theory that can happen. I just have no idea what you&#039;re referring too because I usually argue that things are far more complex than we have time to fully articulate. Maybe it was poor phrasing on my part. I just don&#039;t recall asserting that any of this was simple except for that fact that usually people are concerned about evidence pointing to risks. It&#039;s not simple to carry on after that but it&#039;s simple understanding that finding the right balance between negligence and (excessive) hyper-vigilance is important to do.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It seems simpler to you because you haven&#8217;t bothered yourself with it to the same extent.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sure, in theory that can happen. I just have no idea what you&#8217;re referring too because I usually argue that things are far more complex than we have time to fully articulate. Maybe it was poor phrasing on my part. I just don&#8217;t recall asserting that any of this was simple except for that fact that usually people are concerned about evidence pointing to risks. It&#8217;s not simple to carry on after that but it&#8217;s simple understanding that finding the right balance between negligence and (excessive) hyper-vigilance is important to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5319537</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 07:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5319537</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;And you presumably recognize the same tired informal fallacies.&quot;



We&#039;re going in circles because rather than trying to test the developing theories rationally you kick the pieces apart before trying to assemble them coherently. You&#039;re like a kid that kicks at a complex jigsaw puzzle to prove that the whole project can&#039;t ever work. Keep kicking it and you&#039;ll never see how all the pieces fit together, or not.


I&#039;m just trying to figure out why you do that. Why not patiently make a good faith effort to assemble the puzzle first before you start to tear down the coherent product? It might be less coherent or incoherent to you because of your habits.


Consider that.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;And you presumably recognize the same tired informal fallacies.&#8221;</p>
<p>We&#8217;re going in circles because rather than trying to test the developing theories rationally you kick the pieces apart before trying to assemble them coherently. You&#8217;re like a kid that kicks at a complex jigsaw puzzle to prove that the whole project can&#8217;t ever work. Keep kicking it and you&#8217;ll never see how all the pieces fit together, or not.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m just trying to figure out why you do that. Why not patiently make a good faith effort to assemble the puzzle first before you start to tear down the coherent product? It might be less coherent or incoherent to you because of your habits.</p>
<p>Consider that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5319536</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 06:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5319536</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;So if I really want to try to understand the issues deeply, the complexity disappears?&quot;
 
On the contrary; you argued that A was much more complicated than B.  I&#039;m suggesting that this is simply because you haven&#039;t examined B closely enough to expose yourself to its complexities.  It seems simpler to you because you haven&#039;t bothered yourself with it to the same extent.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;So if I really want to try to understand the issues deeply, the complexity disappears?&#8221;</p>
<p>On the contrary; you argued that A was much more complicated than B.  I&#8217;m suggesting that this is simply because you haven&#8217;t examined B closely enough to expose yourself to its complexities.  It seems simpler to you because you haven&#8217;t bothered yourself with it to the same extent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5319535</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 06:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5319535</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;Huh?&quot;

What&#039;s confusing about that statement you&#039;re responding to?&lt;/blockquote&gt;
 
Its incompleteness and failure to account for key elements of the U.S. approach to Egyptian policy during that time frame, which I discussed immediately afterward.

&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;Are you under the impression Morsi became president because he was selected or approved for the position by a U.S. administration? Or did you mean something entirely different here?&quot;

That&#039;s not what I said. No wonder you see false conspiracy theories everywhere. You help propagate them.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
 
The last sentence in my comment that you quoted very explicitly noted that I was unsure if my comment accurately captured what you were trying to say, and asked for clarification.  If that&#039;s not what you said, then the question &quot;or did you mean something completely different&quot; provided you an excellent opportunity to clarify what you meant.
 
Instead, we get another meandering and rather bizarre metaconversational diatribe on patriotism, etc.

&quot;Before you blow your stack and react emotionally...&quot; 
 
No worries.  The only emotional response this inspired was mild curiosity concerning how a discussion of the last administration&#039;s handling of the MB inspired a lengthy diatribe on your perceptions and misperceptions concerning the nature and shortcomings of my worldview and patriotism, but no matter.  One trusts you found it therapeutic.

&quot;Best example: For you the Muslim Brotherhood is more complicated and salient narratives are more nuanced than the entire history of Christianity.&quot;
 
If that&#039;s your best example, it&#039;s a pretty good indication that your flailing.  Of course, nothing I&#039;ve written suggests any such thing.

&quot;You&#039;re a typical progressive in many ways. That&#039;s not an insult. But progressives are largely deluded about reality. It&#039;s a requirement.&quot;
 
And you presumably recognize the same tired informal fallacies.  It&#039;s this sort of banality that drives me to implore you to stick to the topic and not veer into the metaconversation.  Far be it from me to suggest that you&#039;ve ignored your own advice about responding emotionally, but, well, the emotional content of this last post was distastefully high.  Perhaps we need to take a break while you refocus.  Regards.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>&#8220;Huh?&#8221;</p>
<p>What&#8217;s confusing about that statement you&#8217;re responding to?</p></blockquote>
<p>Its incompleteness and failure to account for key elements of the U.S. approach to Egyptian policy during that time frame, which I discussed immediately afterward.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Are you under the impression Morsi became president because he was selected or approved for the position by a U.S. administration? Or did you mean something entirely different here?&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s not what I said. No wonder you see false conspiracy theories everywhere. You help propagate them.</p></blockquote>
<p>The last sentence in my comment that you quoted very explicitly noted that I was unsure if my comment accurately captured what you were trying to say, and asked for clarification.  If that&#8217;s not what you said, then the question &#8220;or did you mean something completely different&#8221; provided you an excellent opportunity to clarify what you meant.</p>
<p>Instead, we get another meandering and rather bizarre metaconversational diatribe on patriotism, etc.</p>
<p>&#8220;Before you blow your stack and react emotionally&#8230;&#8221; </p>
<p>No worries.  The only emotional response this inspired was mild curiosity concerning how a discussion of the last administration&#8217;s handling of the MB inspired a lengthy diatribe on your perceptions and misperceptions concerning the nature and shortcomings of my worldview and patriotism, but no matter.  One trusts you found it therapeutic.</p>
<p>&#8220;Best example: For you the Muslim Brotherhood is more complicated and salient narratives are more nuanced than the entire history of Christianity.&#8221;</p>
<p>If that&#8217;s your best example, it&#8217;s a pretty good indication that your flailing.  Of course, nothing I&#8217;ve written suggests any such thing.</p>
<p>&#8220;You&#8217;re a typical progressive in many ways. That&#8217;s not an insult. But progressives are largely deluded about reality. It&#8217;s a requirement.&#8221;</p>
<p>And you presumably recognize the same tired informal fallacies.  It&#8217;s this sort of banality that drives me to implore you to stick to the topic and not veer into the metaconversation.  Far be it from me to suggest that you&#8217;ve ignored your own advice about responding emotionally, but, well, the emotional content of this last post was distastefully high.  Perhaps we need to take a break while you refocus.  Regards.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5319531</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 05:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5319531</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Are you under the impression Morsi became president because he was selected or approved for the position by a U.S. administration? Or did you mean something entirely different here?&quot;

That&#039;s not what I said. No wonder you see false conspiracy theories everywhere. You help propagate them.

The Cairo speech, &quot;A New Beginning&quot; certainly was delivered in circumstances that promoted the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood could hope to become a mainstream political party with full recognition by America. We don&#039;t even know what happened behind the scenes but in the public spaces we can see that 0&#039;Bama was indeed reaching out to them actively.

&quot;Huh?&quot;

What&#039;s confusing about that statement you&#039;re responding to?

&quot;The Bush administration pushed hard for constitutional reform in the immediate wake of the Iraq War, but when it became clear that we&#039;d botched that mission and were in deep kimchi, the pressure came off and Bush enlisted Mubarak as an ally in our Iraq entanglement.&quot;



You seem to be implying that Bush would have pushed Mubarak to include the MB. It&#039;s possible that he would have. But the way in which 0&#039;Bama handled the entire sequence of events favored the MB above all other groups in Egypt. Certainly Bush would not have turned on Mubarak so acutely and publicly.


I do think Bush would have of course pushed Mubarak, but towards a constitutional democracy that more closely mirrored our values. That alone would have made it more difficult for the MB to pull some of their nonsense. 


But that&#039;s neither here nor there. Bush did not go to Cairo and basically tell everyone that America wants to reset everything we said and that only arrogance led us to push our values on to others. If you think he can talk like that to the public and not send special messages to certain favored parties, you&#039;re a rube.


And it&#039;s not even clear that you&#039;re following the narratives clearly. But you think that the Moral Majority (political action group active only in America where Christians wrote most of the early founding documents) and the Muslim Brotherhood operating internationally are more or less the same thing with the same agenda for America. Somehow the MB in Egypt cherishes sharia as their constitution but the MB here in America worships our constitution. 


That alone tells me quite about about what to expect from your analysis. You are extremely partisan, and not in favor of the US constitution as a quasi-sacred document. I can infer that you think multiculturalism is progressive. And that progressive in this context is a good thing.


This is why I say that you are not patriotic to the US Constitution as it exists, no matter what you pledged. You&#039;re patriotic to your own ideals. You are patriotic to YOUR American dream, not &quot;The American Dream.&quot;


You&#039;re patriotic to what you hope America will become for the sake of your ancestors and probably because you hope you can claim some personal credit for being &quot;on the right side of history.&quot;


You&#039;re a typical progressive in many ways. That&#039;s not an insult. But progressives are largely deluded about reality. It&#039;s a requirement. They are idealists that will be less effective if they pay too much attention to reality.  They care more about effectiveness than they do about being right in any objective sense.


You&#039;re intensely interested in being right about supporting your narratives and then simply attacking anything that conflicts with your worldviews. The way that you treat religions as more or less fungible is the most blatant tell you have.


Before you blow your stack and react emotionally, please consider if there&#039;s anything I&#039;ve said that might be useful in your search for objective truths. Because you might be more useful for mankind if you become more grounded in the full scope of observable reality.


Best example: For you the Muslim Brotherhood is more complicated and salient narratives are more nuanced than the entire history of Christianity. Because that is what it takes to hold your worldviews together. You have to make &quot;Christians&quot; an artificially amplified threat in order to counter the legitimate concerns people raise with Islam and compatibility with the West.


In your future multicultural global government it will all be rectified. I&#039;m sure. Focus too much on salient history, the wrong history, and your worldview might fall apart. Then you&#039;ll lose focus on progress towards our Utopian future.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Are you under the impression Morsi became president because he was selected or approved for the position by a U.S. administration? Or did you mean something entirely different here?&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s not what I said. No wonder you see false conspiracy theories everywhere. You help propagate them.</p>
<p>The Cairo speech, &#8220;A New Beginning&#8221; certainly was delivered in circumstances that promoted the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood could hope to become a mainstream political party with full recognition by America. We don&#8217;t even know what happened behind the scenes but in the public spaces we can see that 0&#8242;Bama was indeed reaching out to them actively.</p>
<p>&#8220;Huh?&#8221;</p>
<p>What&#8217;s confusing about that statement you&#8217;re responding to?</p>
<p>&#8220;The Bush administration pushed hard for constitutional reform in the immediate wake of the Iraq War, but when it became clear that we&#8217;d botched that mission and were in deep kimchi, the pressure came off and Bush enlisted Mubarak as an ally in our Iraq entanglement.&#8221;</p>
<p>You seem to be implying that Bush would have pushed Mubarak to include the MB. It&#8217;s possible that he would have. But the way in which 0&#8242;Bama handled the entire sequence of events favored the MB above all other groups in Egypt. Certainly Bush would not have turned on Mubarak so acutely and publicly.</p>
<p>I do think Bush would have of course pushed Mubarak, but towards a constitutional democracy that more closely mirrored our values. That alone would have made it more difficult for the MB to pull some of their nonsense. </p>
<p>But that&#8217;s neither here nor there. Bush did not go to Cairo and basically tell everyone that America wants to reset everything we said and that only arrogance led us to push our values on to others. If you think he can talk like that to the public and not send special messages to certain favored parties, you&#8217;re a rube.</p>
<p>And it&#8217;s not even clear that you&#8217;re following the narratives clearly. But you think that the Moral Majority (political action group active only in America where Christians wrote most of the early founding documents) and the Muslim Brotherhood operating internationally are more or less the same thing with the same agenda for America. Somehow the MB in Egypt cherishes sharia as their constitution but the MB here in America worships our constitution. </p>
<p>That alone tells me quite about about what to expect from your analysis. You are extremely partisan, and not in favor of the US constitution as a quasi-sacred document. I can infer that you think multiculturalism is progressive. And that progressive in this context is a good thing.</p>
<p>This is why I say that you are not patriotic to the US Constitution as it exists, no matter what you pledged. You&#8217;re patriotic to your own ideals. You are patriotic to YOUR American dream, not &#8220;The American Dream.&#8221;</p>
<p>You&#8217;re patriotic to what you hope America will become for the sake of your ancestors and probably because you hope you can claim some personal credit for being &#8220;on the right side of history.&#8221;</p>
<p>You&#8217;re a typical progressive in many ways. That&#8217;s not an insult. But progressives are largely deluded about reality. It&#8217;s a requirement. They are idealists that will be less effective if they pay too much attention to reality.  They care more about effectiveness than they do about being right in any objective sense.</p>
<p>You&#8217;re intensely interested in being right about supporting your narratives and then simply attacking anything that conflicts with your worldviews. The way that you treat religions as more or less fungible is the most blatant tell you have.</p>
<p>Before you blow your stack and react emotionally, please consider if there&#8217;s anything I&#8217;ve said that might be useful in your search for objective truths. Because you might be more useful for mankind if you become more grounded in the full scope of observable reality.</p>
<p>Best example: For you the Muslim Brotherhood is more complicated and salient narratives are more nuanced than the entire history of Christianity. Because that is what it takes to hold your worldviews together. You have to make &#8220;Christians&#8221; an artificially amplified threat in order to counter the legitimate concerns people raise with Islam and compatibility with the West.</p>
<p>In your future multicultural global government it will all be rectified. I&#8217;m sure. Focus too much on salient history, the wrong history, and your worldview might fall apart. Then you&#8217;ll lose focus on progress towards our Utopian future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5319530</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 04:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5319530</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;No, it&#039;s not, not really. It&#039;s all a matter of how deeply you really want to try to understand the issues.&quot;

OK, it&#039;s not more complicated. You must have a simple paradigm to explain all of this.

&quot;It&#039;s all a matter of how deeply you really want to try to understand the issues.&quot;

So if I really want to try to understand the issues deeply, the complexity disappears? What&#039;s the reason for understanding issues deeply if there is no depth or complexity?

&quot;For example, your generalization of the MB as a political party that renounced violence in order to appeal to a broader constituency is full of unsupported assumption and assertion.&quot;

I deduce that if they publicized it they must care what people think. They want to be popular. If they thought it was incidental they wouldn&#039;t bother defending this position as genuine. The question is how sincere and concrete is the renunciation in terms of actions beyond the words. They don&#039;t actively denounce others that use violence, unless there is another reason.

&quot;It&#039;s &#039;simple&#039; if you &#039;simply&#039; accept your characterization of their motivations, and if you buy into your characterization of AQ as a group that shares goals and differs only in tactics.&quot;

Wait. I said it was complicated. You disagreed. Maybe you didn&#039;t read carefully.

&quot;(Though, of course, when it comes to abortion, the Pope and Eric Rudolph shared the broad goal and differed substantially in tactics; I&#039;m not sure that this is as insignificant a distinction as you are implying.)&quot;

Some times mean and end game are both a problem. Some times it&#039;s one or the other. I really don&#039;t understand how bringing the pope in to it helps anything. Eric Rudolph&#039;s actions are illegal and his ideology is not viral as far as we can tell. But you can be sure that if there is any sign whatsoever that any Christian organization is contemplating anything the left doesn&#039;t like, they&#039;ll be called out as terrorists. Meanwhile guys like Nidal Malik Hasan are just poor victims of workplace stress. Not anything to worry about. 

How could anyone get the idea that Nidal Malik Hasan was influenced by some viral ideology? What a bunch of xenophobes.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;No, it&#8217;s not, not really. It&#8217;s all a matter of how deeply you really want to try to understand the issues.&#8221;</p>
<p>OK, it&#8217;s not more complicated. You must have a simple paradigm to explain all of this.</p>
<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s all a matter of how deeply you really want to try to understand the issues.&#8221;</p>
<p>So if I really want to try to understand the issues deeply, the complexity disappears? What&#8217;s the reason for understanding issues deeply if there is no depth or complexity?</p>
<p>&#8220;For example, your generalization of the MB as a political party that renounced violence in order to appeal to a broader constituency is full of unsupported assumption and assertion.&#8221;</p>
<p>I deduce that if they publicized it they must care what people think. They want to be popular. If they thought it was incidental they wouldn&#8217;t bother defending this position as genuine. The question is how sincere and concrete is the renunciation in terms of actions beyond the words. They don&#8217;t actively denounce others that use violence, unless there is another reason.</p>
<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s &#8216;simple&#8217; if you &#8216;simply&#8217; accept your characterization of their motivations, and if you buy into your characterization of AQ as a group that shares goals and differs only in tactics.&#8221;</p>
<p>Wait. I said it was complicated. You disagreed. Maybe you didn&#8217;t read carefully.</p>
<p>&#8220;(Though, of course, when it comes to abortion, the Pope and Eric Rudolph shared the broad goal and differed substantially in tactics; I&#8217;m not sure that this is as insignificant a distinction as you are implying.)&#8221;</p>
<p>Some times mean and end game are both a problem. Some times it&#8217;s one or the other. I really don&#8217;t understand how bringing the pope in to it helps anything. Eric Rudolph&#8217;s actions are illegal and his ideology is not viral as far as we can tell. But you can be sure that if there is any sign whatsoever that any Christian organization is contemplating anything the left doesn&#8217;t like, they&#8217;ll be called out as terrorists. Meanwhile guys like Nidal Malik Hasan are just poor victims of workplace stress. Not anything to worry about. </p>
<p>How could anyone get the idea that Nidal Malik Hasan was influenced by some viral ideology? What a bunch of xenophobes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5319527</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 03:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5319527</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;It&#039;s a lot more complicated than trying to figure out why a political party would renounce violence in order to appeal to a broader constituency...&quot;
 
No, it&#039;s not, not really.  It&#039;s all a matter of how deeply you really want to try to understand the issues.  For example, your generalization of the MB as a political party that renounced violence in order to appeal to a broader constituency is full of unsupported assumption and assertion.  It&#039;s &#039;simple&#039; if you &#039;simply&#039; accept your characterization of their motivations, and if you buy into your characterization of AQ as a group that shares goals and differs &lt;i&gt;only&lt;/i&gt; in tactics.  Keeping in mind, too, that AQ is not a direct offshoot of the MB, but a third-generation organization created by groups created after their founders&#039; departure from the MB.  Again, the simplicity lies in the observer&#039;s willingness to gloss over such issues.  (Though, of course, when it comes to abortion, the Pope and Eric Rudolph shared the broad goal and differed substantially in tactics; I&#039;m not sure that this is as insignificant a distinction as you are implying.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s a lot more complicated than trying to figure out why a political party would renounce violence in order to appeal to a broader constituency&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>No, it&#8217;s not, not really.  It&#8217;s all a matter of how deeply you really want to try to understand the issues.  For example, your generalization of the MB as a political party that renounced violence in order to appeal to a broader constituency is full of unsupported assumption and assertion.  It&#8217;s &#8216;simple&#8217; if you &#8216;simply&#8217; accept your characterization of their motivations, and if you buy into your characterization of AQ as a group that shares goals and differs <i>only</i> in tactics.  Keeping in mind, too, that AQ is not a direct offshoot of the MB, but a third-generation organization created by groups created after their founders&#8217; departure from the MB.  Again, the simplicity lies in the observer&#8217;s willingness to gloss over such issues.  (Though, of course, when it comes to abortion, the Pope and Eric Rudolph shared the broad goal and differed substantially in tactics; I&#8217;m not sure that this is as insignificant a distinction as you are implying.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5319524</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 03:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5319524</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;They were scrutinized and under different leadership would not have been invited in to the halls of power so easily before 2009.&quot;
 
By whom?  The MB was elected in &lt;i&gt;Egyptian&lt;/i&gt; elections.  Are you under the impression Morsi became president because he was selected or approved for the position by a U.S. administration?  Or did you mean something entirely different here?

&quot;And Bush was not that aggressive because he didn&#039;t want the &quot;War on Terror&quot; to appear to be a &quot;War on Islam.&quot;&quot;
 
Huh?  The Bush administration pushed hard for constitutional reform in the immediate wake of the Iraq War, but when it became clear that we&#039;d botched that mission and were in deep kimchi, the pressure came off and Bush enlisted Mubarak as an ally in our Iraq entanglement.  At that point, the military and intelligence communities had exactly no reason to &quot;tread lightly&quot; in re the MB - Mubarak wanted to suppress them, and we wanted to cultivate Mubarak.  That we could not find a credible excuse to do so speaks volumes.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;They were scrutinized and under different leadership would not have been invited in to the halls of power so easily before 2009.&#8221;</p>
<p>By whom?  The MB was elected in <i>Egyptian</i> elections.  Are you under the impression Morsi became president because he was selected or approved for the position by a U.S. administration?  Or did you mean something entirely different here?</p>
<p>&#8220;And Bush was not that aggressive because he didn&#8217;t want the &#8220;War on Terror&#8221; to appear to be a &#8220;War on Islam.&#8221;&#8221;</p>
<p>Huh?  The Bush administration pushed hard for constitutional reform in the immediate wake of the Iraq War, but when it became clear that we&#8217;d botched that mission and were in deep kimchi, the pressure came off and Bush enlisted Mubarak as an ally in our Iraq entanglement.  At that point, the military and intelligence communities had exactly no reason to &#8220;tread lightly&#8221; in re the MB &#8211; Mubarak wanted to suppress them, and we wanted to cultivate Mubarak.  That we could not find a credible excuse to do so speaks volumes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5318726</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 06:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5318726</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Bottom line: a relatively innocuous fund supporting an organization that had many legitimate functions was investigated and conluded, in the U.S., in the most unfavorable light possible. My point is not to dispute that finding, but to show that it disputes your contention that the MB is somehow not properly and fully scrutinized.&quot;



They were scrutinized and under different leadership would not have been invited in to the halls of power so easily before 2009. We do take it seriously, but some in power have decided for a different approach in the last few years. And Bush was not that aggressive because he didn&#039;t want the &quot;War on Terror&quot; to appear to be a &quot;War on Islam.&quot;


The Republicans were treading lightly but taking it relatively seriously and the Democrats are embracing them as comrades.


It&#039;s part of what &quot;transformation&quot; means in Washington DC.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Bottom line: a relatively innocuous fund supporting an organization that had many legitimate functions was investigated and conluded, in the U.S., in the most unfavorable light possible. My point is not to dispute that finding, but to show that it disputes your contention that the MB is somehow not properly and fully scrutinized.&#8221;</p>
<p>They were scrutinized and under different leadership would not have been invited in to the halls of power so easily before 2009. We do take it seriously, but some in power have decided for a different approach in the last few years. And Bush was not that aggressive because he didn&#8217;t want the &#8220;War on Terror&#8221; to appear to be a &#8220;War on Islam.&#8221;</p>
<p>The Republicans were treading lightly but taking it relatively seriously and the Democrats are embracing them as comrades.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s part of what &#8220;transformation&#8221; means in Washington DC.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5318704</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 05:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5318704</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;It&#039;s pretty straightforward demographics; your interpretation is simply not consistent with the actual detailed district results.&quot;


It&#039;s not consistent with your analysis of...


&quot;WHen I say that there&#039;d have to have been some pretty bizarre demographic shifts, I mean that precisely: you&#039;d have to show that counties that had been overwhelmingly black had, somehow, become bastions of white Southern conservatives, and vice versa.&quot;



Whites were often perceived as being racists no matter what their reasons for supporting states rights. And as I said, it&#039;s possible for racists to think that the Republicans would be the best bet if they believed the new salient for the &quot;race wars&quot; shifted to the border. Those are your typical KKK members or true racists who really object to skin color and loose borders on the basis of xenophobia rather than  having a more sophisticated understanding of sovereignty and culture. 


It&#039;s a lot more complicated than trying to figure out why a political party would renounce violence in order to appeal to a broader constituency, because that&#039;s not unprecedented. And when an offspring group crops up to fill the apparently abandoned void, you have to look at the relationship and see what investigations are called for. It could be a truly discrete split, it could be purely for PR, or it could be something in between. I think it&#039;s something in the middle.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s pretty straightforward demographics; your interpretation is simply not consistent with the actual detailed district results.&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not consistent with your analysis of&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8220;WHen I say that there&#8217;d have to have been some pretty bizarre demographic shifts, I mean that precisely: you&#8217;d have to show that counties that had been overwhelmingly black had, somehow, become bastions of white Southern conservatives, and vice versa.&#8221;</p>
<p>Whites were often perceived as being racists no matter what their reasons for supporting states rights. And as I said, it&#8217;s possible for racists to think that the Republicans would be the best bet if they believed the new salient for the &#8220;race wars&#8221; shifted to the border. Those are your typical KKK members or true racists who really object to skin color and loose borders on the basis of xenophobia rather than  having a more sophisticated understanding of sovereignty and culture. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s a lot more complicated than trying to figure out why a political party would renounce violence in order to appeal to a broader constituency, because that&#8217;s not unprecedented. And when an offspring group crops up to fill the apparently abandoned void, you have to look at the relationship and see what investigations are called for. It could be a truly discrete split, it could be purely for PR, or it could be something in between. I think it&#8217;s something in the middle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5318699</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 05:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5318699</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Again, this doesn&#039;t in any way suggest that the Democratic Party is affiliated with eco-terrorism - but it would, by the logic you&#039;re trying to apply to the MB.&quot;

If the only thing that separates the groups is that the parent group denounced violence (which is a politically advantageous position to take) and the offspring group just happens to fill that role, it&#039;s certainly something that one can easily see might be a matter of managing brand image and public relations rather than being a true discrete split.

OTOH it&#039;s also possible for a genuine split to occur. But most of the surrounding evidence suggests that the MB love AQ and similar groups (or stealth cells) but does not want to be accountable for unpopular violent attacks. They don&#039;t denounce terror against Western targets. Courageous Morsi should not have made noise about getting Omar Abdel-Rahman out of prison, etc. There are many examples of this.



But it&#039;s also possible that any particular politician is sincere about nonviolence and feels the need to placate the violent jihadis. I&#039;m not indicting any individuals. I&#039;m saying that these guys are collectively a threat to our values and going to sleep and dismissing criticism as xenophobia is anti-American behavior. It&#039;s very popular from international leftists who&#039;ve been raised and bred on collectivist dogmas.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Again, this doesn&#8217;t in any way suggest that the Democratic Party is affiliated with eco-terrorism &#8211; but it would, by the logic you&#8217;re trying to apply to the MB.&#8221;</p>
<p>If the only thing that separates the groups is that the parent group denounced violence (which is a politically advantageous position to take) and the offspring group just happens to fill that role, it&#8217;s certainly something that one can easily see might be a matter of managing brand image and public relations rather than being a true discrete split.</p>
<p>OTOH it&#8217;s also possible for a genuine split to occur. But most of the surrounding evidence suggests that the MB love AQ and similar groups (or stealth cells) but does not want to be accountable for unpopular violent attacks. They don&#8217;t denounce terror against Western targets. Courageous Morsi should not have made noise about getting Omar Abdel-Rahman out of prison, etc. There are many examples of this.</p>
<p>But it&#8217;s also possible that any particular politician is sincere about nonviolence and feels the need to placate the violent jihadis. I&#8217;m not indicting any individuals. I&#8217;m saying that these guys are collectively a threat to our values and going to sleep and dismissing criticism as xenophobia is anti-American behavior. It&#8217;s very popular from international leftists who&#8217;ve been raised and bred on collectivist dogmas.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5318696</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 05:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5318696</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;I won&#039;t argue with you.&quot;



You mean you want argue with yourself when you accuse people of xenophobia. You&#039;re consistent about the position that xenophobia is the root cause of these accusations.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I won&#8217;t argue with you.&#8221;</p>
<p>You mean you want argue with yourself when you accuse people of xenophobia. You&#8217;re consistent about the position that xenophobia is the root cause of these accusations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5318674</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 03:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5318674</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m sure it was written by an Islam-o-phobe.


Go ahead and go deeply and explain how all of this smoke is nothing. I&#039;d like to hear something comprehensive rather than simple sniping.


I already told you my theory. The MB is welcome because in Marxist collectivist thinking, the MB might be anti-constitutional, but so are they. And crimes against particular laws aren&#039;t as important as &quot;oppression&quot; and &quot;social justice.&quot;


These threats are trivialized and hidden because the threats are not being managed according to our laws but according to a &quot;transformed&quot; vision of social justice rather than constitutional justice.


Social justice trumps constitutional law to virtually everyone on the left. That&#039;s the problem. They just don&#039;t know how delusional they are and how things will play out because they&#039;re very stupid and assume that virtually every politically active Muslim MUST BE willing to participate in democracy and therefore concerned about preserving American values once our society is perfected by the principals of social justice.


Anyone that disagrees is &quot;biased.&quot; And it&#039;s true, I and others that think like me are biased towards the US Constitution. Others are &quot;patriots&quot; of delusional fantasies about what the patria &quot;should be&quot; in their Marx-tainted dreams and not what exists in reality.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sure it was written by an Islam-o-phobe.</p>
<p>Go ahead and go deeply and explain how all of this smoke is nothing. I&#8217;d like to hear something comprehensive rather than simple sniping.</p>
<p>I already told you my theory. The MB is welcome because in Marxist collectivist thinking, the MB might be anti-constitutional, but so are they. And crimes against particular laws aren&#8217;t as important as &#8220;oppression&#8221; and &#8220;social justice.&#8221;</p>
<p>These threats are trivialized and hidden because the threats are not being managed according to our laws but according to a &#8220;transformed&#8221; vision of social justice rather than constitutional justice.</p>
<p>Social justice trumps constitutional law to virtually everyone on the left. That&#8217;s the problem. They just don&#8217;t know how delusional they are and how things will play out because they&#8217;re very stupid and assume that virtually every politically active Muslim MUST BE willing to participate in democracy and therefore concerned about preserving American values once our society is perfected by the principals of social justice.</p>
<p>Anyone that disagrees is &#8220;biased.&#8221; And it&#8217;s true, I and others that think like me are biased towards the US Constitution. Others are &#8220;patriots&#8221; of delusional fantasies about what the patria &#8220;should be&#8221; in their Marx-tainted dreams and not what exists in reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5318672</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 03:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5318672</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s raving paranoia to dissect each element and attack it in an empty vacuum absent of context.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s raving paranoia to dissect each element and attack it in an empty vacuum absent of context.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/sharia-on-tour/comment-page-2/#comment-5318658</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 02:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=211324#comment-5318658</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Before we dig too deeply into the &quot;Explanatory Memorandum,&quot; can you clarify who wrote the memorandum, what that person&#039;s role in the MB was, what MB body approved the document, and how one concludes that it accurately reflects the goals and objectives of what elements of the MB?

]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Before we dig too deeply into the &#8220;Explanatory Memorandum,&#8221; can you clarify who wrote the memorandum, what that person&#8217;s role in the MB was, what MB body approved the document, and how one concludes that it accurately reflects the goals and objectives of what elements of the MB?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1206/1335 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-30 23:19:08 by W3 Total Cache -->