Raving Conservative: Papal Truth and the Muslims that Prove it

Monday, September 18, 2006

Papal Truth and the Muslims that Prove it

The Pope is being threatened with murder for quoting a 14th century text about Islam in an academic setting. The Text basically said that Islam is violent and relies on violence to spread, and that the teachings of Mohammad that created this violence are an abomination. The Muslim riots, murders, and threats of murder that followed this quote prove it to be true.

Islam calls itself a religion of peace, and yet it is by far the most violent religion on the planet today. Muslims the world over are actively engaging in mass intimidation by riots, threats of violence, terrorism, and oppression, all while claiming to be seeking peaceful resolutions to their own violence. Pardon me if this strikes me as nothing but hypocrisy and lies.

A classic example of this is Yasser Arafat’s famous speech in which he stated “We want peace! We want peace! We want peace!” and followed it up with violent acts against Israel. Some talk of peace while they actively engage in violence. Some talk of violence and act on it. Some are not personally violent, but praise violence and incite others to be violent. A minority are genuinely peaceful from all that I can see.

Governments across the globe are allowing Muslims to violate their laws with impunity because they fear that if they enforce the same regulations on them that they enforce on everyone else that the local Muslim population will rise up and murder people, assault people, and destroy property. This fear is, in my opinion, exactly why they should be dealt with MORE harshly than normal people.

The current battle cry of Islam is “death to all who insult Islam and the Prophet!” Okay then, try this on for size:

Islam is the Devil’s religion and all Muslims will join their prophet in Hell for eternal torture along with their master, Satan. Mohammad was nothing more than a demon possessed madman bent on military conquest and the murder of those who insulted him in his lifetime. All of his followers are following Satan and they will be justly punished.

And here is the best part: If you kill, or attempt to kill me you are proving me right. I dare you to prove me wrong.

But, if you do attempt to prove me right you should know that I am armed and I am a crack shot. Also, my bullets and knife are coated with pig’s blood. Come on and get it.

31 Comments:

"Muslims the world over are actively engaging in mass intimidation by riots"

And yet, even more Muslims the world over are NOT actively engaging in any such. Rather, they pray, seek common ground, search for better answers.

Not unlike christendom that has a minority who are actively engaged in evil and a majority who work for peace.

Your machismo is showing. Don't overcompensate.

By Dan Trabue, at 5:57 AM
The angry Muslim reaction to the Pope's quote was pure irony. Of course this irony ia lost on them.

By DanProject76, at 11:55 AM
So . . . people who claim to want peace but push constantly for violence and war, need to be opposed.

Okay.

I take it that this is further proof of why we need to invade Muslim countries?

By catastrophile, at 1:13 PM
Incidentally, would it surprise you to hear that Madonna has received death threats over her crucifixion routine?

By catastrophile, at 1:32 PM
There are one billion Muslims on the planet. If what you're saying is true we'd all be dead right now.

By Wasp Jerky, at 5:17 PM
"Islam is the Devil’s religion and all Muslims will join their prophet in Hell for eternal torture along with their master, Satan..."

God bless religious tolerance in America!

Er...

By DanProject76, at 1:05 AM
Well, all I have to say is that I support the Pope and what he had to say. His intentions were misconstrued and the Islamofascists over-reacted.

The day that someone tries to hurt the Pope is the day that we stop holding back.

By Neo-Con Tastic, at 7:24 PM
"Being armed and ready to resist isn't the same thing as hunting people down and killing them."

That's why we're hunting them down and killing them -- so we don't have to resist them here.

Damn those Iraqis, arming themselves and resisting.

. . .

Wait, what?

By catastrophile, at 12:44 PM
"Just because Daniel told the truth about Islam"

Which truth was that?

That "Muslims the world over are actively engaging in mass intimidation by riots?"

I didn't say nor suggest he was planning on hunting down anyone. Just pointing out that usually when most dudes adopt a "whachyoogonnadoboutit?" attitude, they're overcompensating for something. That attitude belongs on third grade schoolyards (where it should get corrected).

By Dan Trabue, at 2:51 AM
Me and guns don't mix, Scott. I might be tempted to make holes in bigots and you wouldn't like that kind of thing.

By DanProject76, at 10:16 AM
"rampages and thuggery"

"Shock & Awe"

It's all the same to the people being bombed, isn't it?

While fundies of every stripe are out there playing "my God's bigger than your God" the rest of us are trying to figure out how to keep society going.

Locking yourself in a bunker with knives, guns, and pigs blood isn't exactly constructive, but I suppose it's better than wasting countless $billions to project your will on the other side of the world. What you do in your home is your own business, and tends not to hurt the rest of society, despite what the "cultural conservative" crowd preaches around election time.

Good luck with that.

By catastrophile, at 5:12 PM
It's time for me to make a few points here.

1: Muslims attacked us first. Every Muslim, regardless of nationality who is fighting us in the Middle East is part of the global terrorist regime we are now defending ourselves from.

2: I AM overcompensating for something. I am overcompensatinng for the lack of effective action worldwide to rein in the islamofascists who are actively murdering and intimidating people worldwide, so much so that they are, and this one is for DP76, able to break England's laws banning speech that is designed to incite violence because the authorities are afraid that if they DO take action they will be murdered. And that is just one example.

3: Religious tolerance is one thing, tolerating institutions that promote hatred, violence, and even murder is something else entirely. I do not tolerate institutions that do this regardless of what religion, ideology, or principles they wrap themselves in.

4: I challenge anyone to name one religion that is responsible for more violence, murder, and other atrocities in the world today, meaning currently engaging in them, not hundreds of years old, that exceeds Islam. The fact is that the problems Muslims are creating on a global would be easily solved by countries banning muslims from entering thier countries. Allow existing ones to stay and practice thier religion peacefully. However, those who advocate violence should be deported. This would sole over 90% of the terrorism problems in te world by restricting muslims to the Middle East where they can be free to terrorize each other to thier heart's content.

5: 1 billion Muslims is less than 5 billion non-Muslims who would defend themselves if all one billion Muslims took up arms today. Also, the vast majority of them are confined to the cesspool, I mean Musllim nations. Crunch the numbers, Muslims lose.

6: I find it amusing that I would be called a bigot for condemning religious volence and terrorism.

By Daniel Levesque, at 11:20 AM
"I challenge anyone to name one religion that is responsible for more violence, murder, and other atrocities in the world today"

Herein lies the problem with your thinking. Islam is NOT a religion that advocates the above. SOME MUSLIMS do, just as some Christians do (and I've seen plenty of christians advocating turning Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc into a "sea of glass" or a crater so it's a reality). MOST Muslims don't advocate violence.

But I think, based on numbers alone, you could investigate and discover that most violence in the world is currently perpetrated by those who'd claim to be Christians.

You reject their claim to Christianity? Well, so do most Muslims reject those who terrorize in the name of Allah.

Would you not extend to Muslims the same ability to pick and choose who represents them that you'd want Christians to have?

By Dan Trabue, at 4:46 AM
Dan T,

You obviously missed some key words here. So I shall ignore the fact that you are excusing Muslim Terrorism and the persecution of all non-muslims everywhere Muslims are in the majority by saying "some Christians are violent too".

What you have overlooked is that while I have met some individual Christians who advocate violence as a means of puting an end to Muslim violence, and some Christians do engage in violence, the number of Chritians who engage in violence in the name of God is miniscule compared to te number of Muslims who do the same thing, and the degree of violence those Christins engage in is a fraction of the extreme vilence the Muslims are engaging in. Also, while Christianity, as a whole, has learned from its mistakes, Islam has continued to engage in the same unending war against the rest of the world ever since Mohammad personally started the first Jihad.

To excuse this by condemning Christians is silly when you take an honest look at the facts. Remeber, the most backward and oppressive nations in the worrld fall into exactly two categories: 1: Muslim Nations, and 2: Communist Nations.

By Daniel Levesque, at 6:16 PM
I haven't seen any data to back up what you claim. I suspect (just a hunch without any data) that you would be correct to assume that a smaller percentage of Christians actively endorse violence than Muslims. But I'm guessing we might have 5% of Muslims and 4% of Christians, depending upon what you include in the realm of violence.

But again, those are just numbers grabbed from the air. I don't really know. Nor do you and that's my point.

I mean, if we include advocating bombing the snot out of Iraq (Iran, Syria, etc) in the "advocating violence" realm, then I'd bet the numbers of Christians who advocate violence is probably much larger than Muslims (again, just a guess).

I AM NOT "excusing" anything. Violence towards innocents is wrong, as is advocating such. Every time.

Don't talk to me about making excuses until you back off your excuse-making for why it's okay for US to kill them and those around them. Now THAT'S an excuse.

What I'm saying is that the majority of Muslims DISPROVE your point in that the majority of Muslims do not advocate or participate in violence. This is clear based on the evidence at hand.

If you want to condemn those FEW Muslims who are behaving badly, I'm with you there. If you want to condemn the whole based on the few, then I shall condemn the whole of Republicanism based on the actions and words of a few.

But then, that would be just ridiculous, wouldn't it?

Yes, it would.

By Dan Trabue, at 4:23 AM
Dan T,

You are still missing the key here. They key is not violence in general, such the American defensive reaction to terrorism. The key here is violencein the name of God. Hence the words "religious violence" in my original statement.

Under your broad defiinition I am no betterthan the monsters who murdered thousands of innocent people on Sept. 11 2001 because I fully support the violent means neccessary to save the lives of thousands more by stopping the terrorists from murdering them. We both know this is not true. Anyone with a lick of sense can understand the difference.

By Daniel Levesque, at 8:24 AM
I don't think I'm missing any point here at all. You said that "Muslims the world over are actively engaging in mass intimidation by riots" etc, with the implication being that this is a problem inherent to Islam.

It is a problem with a relative FEW Muslims, or people claiming to be Muslims. But the VAST majority of Muslims reject this violence.

It is a factually inaccurate statement, then, to suggest that this is a problem with Islam. THAT is what I'm saying is wrong with your original post. IF YOU WANT to condemn those Muslims who are acting violently, then I will gladly join you.

IF, on the other hand, you want to demonize Islam, I will reject that as a diabolical lie. Not because I'm a believer in Islam, but because I'm a believer in Truth.

Thou shall not bear false witness.

By Dan Trabue, at 9:37 AM
"But the VAST majority of Muslims reject this violence."

Odd. I don't hear them condemning the violence at all. COme to think of it, almost every Muslim I see either participates in the violence, approves of the violence, or gives tacit approval through silence. The vast minority actually speak out against it.

Try again.

By Daniel Levesque, at 5:54 PM
And this "vast majority" that you see... where do you see them? What research are you relying upon?

What's that?! You're not relying on ANY research. It's just a hunch on your part?!

You're just talking about what you've seen on TV? You're basing it on the media reporting the bad behavior of a few self-identified Muslims and not the great majority of peaceable muslims who've NOT been reported upon?

You're basing it on a hunch? A guess? What you THINK most muslims are thinking?

Try again.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/
articles/international_security_bt/221.php?
nid=&id=&pnt=221&lb=brme

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

You (or me or Bush or bin Laden) thinking something is so doesn't make it so.

By Dan Trabue, at 10:14 AM
"You're not relying on ANY research. It's just a hunch on your part?!"

Not a hunch. It is my personal observation based on prsonal interaction and what I observe in the news.

Also, the polling sites you have cited are not established as credible sites. If Rasmussesn or Gallup or came up with similar results I would be willin gto conceed that your point may be valid. howevwer, as one who has dealt with pollsters a bit in the past I know a few things that the average person does not.

1: All polls are subjective depending on teh questions asked. For example, if I asked these questions: Do you approve of terrorism? Do you you aprove of Jihad? I would get wildly diverging results with Jihad showing far more support than teroorism. The important thing to note in this case is that they are both exactly the same thing in tis current say and age because all current Jihadis are engaging in terorism or loudly supporting it. Another example of how polls can be manipulated is the sample population. If I poll only Muslims who belong to mosques where the leadership is, rare as it is, is actually speaking out against terrorism the results will be more peaceful than if I polled say . . . anywhere in teh Middle East.

Also, you are overlooking thelie factor. Just as Yasser Arafat spoke about peace while engaging in violent terrorism, on a sunbject such as this many people in general will not come out and say "I want to see non-Muslims kiled ans subjugated". It is very bad PR. However, the worlds desire for the lie to be true can be so powerful that an active terrorist can be given the Nobel Peace Prize for simply saying he is willing to give peace a chance, such as in the case with Yasser Arafat.

Personally, I am dissappointed that DP76 has not chimed in noting the very real fact that the Muslim "demonstrators" in Engand are being allowed to run rampant because the authorities, and they admit this, are afraid of being killed for enforcing Brittish law. And Dan T, if what you are saying here held any truth to it, though you think it is true, situations such as this would not be a problem in England and across Europe in general. And do not forget France where virtually no Muslims spoke out against the riots, and the French government, rather than smashing the rioters they way have to other violent rioters in the past, decided to give the Muslims rewards for thier violence in an effort to make it go away. This only shows that Muslim violence works in favor of the violent in France.

By Daniel Levesque, at 7:59 AM
"It is my personal observation based on prsonal interaction and what I observe in the news."

And by your personal observation you've seen an accurate sampling of all the muslims in the world?

Here's a clue: They don't tend to show the well-behaved folk on the news. So when you see that a lot of criminals on TV are black, you can't jump to the conclusion that all blacks are criminals.

Similarly for muslims.

Until you have some evidence to support this, I'll have to assume that you're just guessing as to the accuracy of your assertion that Muslim = bad.

Muslims against terrorism and Muslim peacemakers:

www.cpt.org/archives/2005/feb05/0004.html
http://www.freemuslims.org/about/
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm
http://www.mvp-us.org/
http://www.rayhawk.com/classics/matusa/home.html
http://www.awesomelibrary.org/Muslims.html
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-05/
2005-05-13-voa38.cfm?CFID=42375597&CFTOKEN=85098498

http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/mat1.htm

I could go on and on. There are pages and pages out there of Muslims standing against violence by Muslims (as well as violence by the US), Muslim Peacemaker teams, Muslim and Christian interfaith peacemakers (some of whom are friends of mine) and on and on and on.

There are 1 billion Muslims out there and only thousands (tens of thousands?) who are involved in violence.

Do the research. Don't make empty claims.

By Dan Trabue, at 12:44 PM
"Personally, I am dissappointed that DP76 has not chimed in noting the very real fact that the Muslim "demonstrators" in Engand are being allowed to run rampant because the authorities, and they admit this, are afraid of being killed for enforcing Brittish law."

That's what the more extremist parts of our media are saying. But then they are conspiracy theorists who think that global warming is a myth so what do they know? :-)

Our Muslim Fanatics are totally mental for sure and should get more grief than they are getting at presnet, for sure... but they are showing themselves up for what they really are and that is murderous loony minorities within a minority group who claim they are speaking for a hell of a lot more people than they really are. The normal Muslims make a fuss and get media attention too but of course we all know that a fee crazy shouty men with beards are a far more interesting headline than some nice polite dudes and chicks in sensible clothing, don't we?

They're hardly being allowed to "run rampant" though. We have all sorts of crazy folks who are allowed to get het up about stuff and be unpleasant. We have the BNP who are a racist party. We have The Christian Voice who are almost a British version of your American Loony Christians with banners and megaphones. We let them say their bits to show their true colours. It's called freedom of speech. I believe the USA likes that kind of thing when it suits them...

For the record, I hate religious zealots of all types. The 'my god is better than your god' brigade bug me and the people who try to justify murder in the name of their preferred imaginary friend are the scum of the earth.

By DanProject76, at 1:34 PM
Daniel: "Muslims attacked us first."

I don't think you'll find many of "them" who'll agree with that statement.

At the end of the day, this is not a religious war. It is a geopolitical conflict with a strong religious component. America did not become a target because of our "freedom" or failure to convert to Islam, we became a target because we've spent several decades involving ourselves in the politics of nations on the other side of the world that happen to be sitting on resources we need. Iranians didn't sieze our embassy randomly, without reason . . . they did so because it was seen as the puppetmaster behind the dictator they'd just overthrown. And CIA documents have since proven that to be the case. We were in their house long before they came to ours, even without going back hundreds of years.

Does any of that justify atrocities? No. But blinding yourself to root causes ensures that you'll never solve them. This strategy of insulting Muslims and suggesting the only way out is to kill them all only prolongs the cycle. All you accomplish is pushing moderates away from your position and towards Osama.

As one commentator put it, when Gee-Dub got up and said "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists," most Muslims looked at him and said "well, we know we're not with you . . ."

By catastrophile, at 3:47 PM
"Here's a clue: They don't tend to show the well-behaved folk on the news. So when you see that a lot of criminals on TV are black, you can't jump to the conclusion that all blacks are criminals."

Which is what makes the words of Muslims I have interracted with personally so important. When one supports the other I call both credible.

"Muslims against terrorism and Muslim peacemakers"

Unfortunately, the constant talk of peace by Muslims leaders and common folk while actively funding or engaging in terrorism has undermined such groups as you have presented by making all of thier claims suspect. In other words, experience teaches that any Muslim who talks of peace has a strong probably of being a two-faced, backstabbing liar.

"There are 1 billion Muslims out there and only thousands (tens of thousands?) who are involved in violence."

J\Here's an idea. Prove that 900,000,000 Mulsims are opposed to terrorism. Better idea. let them prove it by wiping out the terrorists themselves. Oh. That's right. in 1,600 years they have not stopped Muslim terrorism.

"We have The Christian Voice who are almost a British version of your American Loony Christians with banners and megaphones"

Are they inciting people to violence and murderlike the Muslims are?

"As one commentator put it, when Gee-Dub got up and said "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists," most Muslims looked at him and said "well, we know we're not with you . . ." "

Exactly. I find it it a symptom of spiritual and mental illness to choose sides with terrorists over almost anyone else. If the Muslim moderates were opposed to terrorism their response would have been more like "Well, the enemy of my enemy IS my friend . . . at least for now."

By Daniel Levesque, at 1:33 AM
Daniel:"Unfortunately, the constant talk of peace by Muslims leaders and common folk while actively funding or engaging in terrorism has undermined such groups as you have presented by making all of thier claims suspect. In other words, experience teaches that any Muslim who talks of peace has a strong probably of being a two-faced, backstabbing liar."

This quote from you sums up perfectly why you are incapable of rational debate. You have your conclusion set out before even posting the blog!

By DanProject76, at 2:19 AM
Daniel: Exactly. I find it it a symptom of spiritual and mental illness to choose sides with terrorists over almost anyone else. If the Muslim moderates were opposed to terrorism their response would have been more like "Well, the enemy of my enemy IS my friend . . . at least for now."

Hold on a sec. In your initial post, you imply that if and when "they" come after you and yours, you're prepared to fight like a madman against them. Now you're saying that Muslims are spiritually and mentally ill for adopting, from their perspective, essentially the same attitude.

(Note that the population of Iraq was pretty happy to have us come kick out Saddam . . . until they realized we had no intention of leaving.)

Beyond that: Over almost anyone else? Nonsense. The number one thing that the extremists use to recruit new blood is us. Because we're seen as constantly -- constantly -- imposing our will on weaker countries. More accurately, the Cheneys and Rumsfelds and Negropontes and their privateer allies bring this reputation on us. Iran. Iraq. Afghanistan, in a long proxy war during which we created what al Qaeda is today. And now we conveniently forget all of this history and decide that this culture we haven't stopped f@cking with for sixty years -- and it's not just the US, but the entire oil-consuming world doing the f@cking -- now we decide that they're just a bunch of rabid dogs to be put down.

Sorry. Not gonna fly. You wanna be the greatest country on Earth, you need to take responsibility for the things done in your name. Bigotry is too easy an answer.

By catastrophile, at 12:41 PM
"In your initial post, you imply that if and when "they" come after you and yours, you're prepared to fight like a madman against them. Now you're saying that Muslims are spiritually and mentally ill for adopting, from their perspective, essentially the same attitude."

Did I ever once say that I would support US terrorists over Muslims though? If a group of obsessed madmen from the US went over to the Middle East and crash a bunch of passeenger planes into civillian targets I would go after the terrorists, not thier victims, even if the ones who were attacked made a "if you aren;t with us you are with them" statement. I am not with Muslims. I do not agree with their religion, the violens means they have been using to spread their religion throughout all of their history, or pretty much anything elsse abou them. But at the same time, I will not support terrorists just because they target Muslims instead of Americans. The Muslims who are supporting terrorists over the ones the terrorists attack fall short of this simple standard of decency and humanity.

" . . . we're seen as constantly -- constantly -- imposing our will on weaker countries. More accurately, the Cheneys and Rumsfelds and Negropontes and their privateer allies bring this reputation on us."

Too funny. You DO realize the US had this reputation since Vietnam, right? The entire time except since 2000 the Democrats controlled either the white house, the congress, or both. It is not the fault of the Republicans and conservatives that we have this reputation.

"And now we conveniently forget all of this history and decide that this culture we haven't stopped f@cking with for sixty years -- and it's not just the US, but the entire oil-consuming world doing the f@cking -- now we decide that they're just a bunch of rabid dogs to be put down."

60 years? You forget something vital: We, England, and other European countries have been involved in the Middle East for closer to 150 years. until about 60 years ago the entire Middle East was a series of colonies controlled primarily by England, and this colonization period ws also one of the most peaceful times the Middle East has seen since the rise of Islam. All of this insanity began after colonizatiton ended and the west backed off from controlling Middle Eastern affairs. Now, aint history fun?

"You wanna be the greatest country on Earth . . ."

Wanna be? If you can name one nation today that has more power, influence, wealth, freedom, and stability all rolled into one I am willing to listen. Until that time comes, America does not want to be the greatest country on Earth, we ARE the greatest country on Earth. Now, historically speaking England, Rome, Greece, China, the Ottomans, and Babylon all held this same position at one time or another. In time other countries or empires may do the same. Right now though, no one matches the US.

By Daniel Levesque, at 8:26 AM
"All of this insanity began after colonizatiton ended and the west backed off from controlling Middle Eastern affairs. Now, aint history fun?"

60 years ago? You mean when the demand for cheap oil began?

Yeah, history IS fun.

By Dan Trabue, at 9:33 AM
Daniel: Did I ever once say that I would support US terrorists over Muslims though? If a group of obsessed madmen from the US went over to the Middle East and crash a bunch of passeenger planes into civillian targets I would go after the terrorists, not thier victims, even if the ones who were attacked made a "if you aren't with us you are with them" statement.

But if elements of the executive branch were found to have illegally backed death squads and dictators in countries from South America to the Middle East, you'd argue they were just fighting to protect our freedom. Because it happened.

Daniel: "You DO realize the US had this reputation since Vietnam, right? The entire time except since 2000 the Democrats controlled either the white house, the congress, or both. It is not the fault of the Republicans and conservatives that we have this reputation."

Not only the fault. And I never said it was. Does the fact that Dems had a hand in it make it morally justifiable to you? I've already explained on this board where the phrase "neoconservative" originated. Liberal interventionism meets conservative trickle-down theory, with a facade of faith to cover a philosophy of cynicism and greed.

I also like the way you claim we "backed off" the Middle East . . . the period you're talking about was marked by the rise of the UN-created colony called Israel, the US-backed Shah of Iran, and the Ba'ath Party in Iraq -- also ours, until all of a sudden it wasn't.

But, see, this is the very point. You refuse to see that which is inconsistent with your position. Countless Arabs and Muslims have died at the hands of proxies established to protect "our" interests, but you pretend that's unrelated, somebody else's fault. You continue to support the public face of the very same men that have pushed these cruel policies on other nations. But for taking the same position in regards to their own radical extremists, you condemn the faith of all Muslims.

And, really, it's not even all Muslims you're after. It's Arab Muslims. That is to say, the populations of these nations we "backed off" from 60 years ago.

Daniel: "we ARE the greatest country on Earth."

Then don't try to pretend we've got nothing to do with the state of the world. You can't be the most powerful and influential state on the planet and claim the role of innocent victim. Countries don't spend half-a-trillion dollars a year minding their own business.

By catastrophile, at 12:34 PM
"Does the fact that Dems had a hand in it make it morally justifiable to you?"

Nope. The fact that the Dems created this situation makes the constant whining on thier art, with promises that everything would be better if they were in control laughable. I get a chuckle every time I hear it in fact. It also exposes the lie that everyone who blames the curent situation on President Bush and the Republicans are telling every time they make this accusation. Hence, the self ritcheous posturing on teh part of liberals is based on deciet.

"You refuse to see that which is inconsistent with your position. Countless Arabs and Muslims have died at the hands of proxies established to protect "our" interests, but you pretend that's unrelated, somebody else's fault."

You misunderstand. I am saying that the colonization of teh Middle East should never have ended because Westerners were far better able to keep the peace and prosper the region than the Arabs have proved to be.

"Then don't try to pretend we've got nothing to do with the state of the world."

I never said that. What I have been sayiong over and over again is that we are not a malevolent or hostile in the world. I have been saying that no less than half the world oowes its lives to the US and most of the free nations in the world owe thier fredom to the US. I am saying that any hostility directed at us is the act of a retarded dog biting the hand that feeds it.

By Daniel Levesque, at 8:53 AM
"I am saying that the colonization of teh Middle East should never have ended because Westerners were far better able to keep the peace and prosper the region than the Arabs have proved to be."

And I'm saying that the colonization of the Middle East never did end. You understand geopolitics well enough to grasp the concept of a puppet regime. We can easily enough say that Castro was a puppet of the Soviets, or Assad a puppet of Iran, but when it comes to Pinochet, Batista, the Shah, Israel, all these governments we've propped up to protect "our" interests -- or should I say "investments" -- somehow it's considered unfair to point out that they're puppets too.

You expect the people who've experienced this treatment to love us for it. As bad as the government of Iran today might be, I submit to you that it doesn't even approach the brutality of the Shah's secret police. You expect the people of Iran and Iraq to thank us, after we covertly supported both sides in their war, encouraging them to kill each other off.

You justify all of this on the grounds that they're evil and satanic, while acknowledging at the same time that you'd fight just as savagely if somebody was coming after you and your family.

For them to target innocents is beyond justification, but there are no innocents among them -- by failing to oppose the terrorists among them, they make themselves our enemies -- so they deserve whatever they get, the logic goes.

Exactly the same logic they use to justify targeting innocents. Exactly. Don't you see how dangerous that is?

By catastrophile, at 1:53 PM

Raving Conservative

Monday, September 18, 2006

Papal Truth and the Muslims that Prove it

31 Comments:

About

Contributors

Previous

Proud Member of the Alliance