MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
America’s pathological denial of reality
By Lurker on Mon, 12/07/2015 - 7:03pm |Caroline Glick may be an avatar of the Angel of Death, but she writes well and convincingly. This article is a good example of the incredulity and scorn that US policy arouses in the outside world.
"Perhaps the shooters in San Bernadino were just mad at their boss. Maybe Farooq suffered from clinical depression or ADD, or PTSD, or something.
And maybe Islamic State, with its new colony Sirte in “liberated” Libya, just 400 miles from Italy, is on the run. Maybe as well, Turkey is just a patsy and Russia is really Islamic State’s largest trading partner, or maybe Israel is, or Ireland."
URL:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-One-Americas-pathological-denial-of-reality-436278
- Add new comment
- 19283 reads
Comments
The administration has decided that putting US boots on the ground to fight ISIS would wind up in disaster. ISIS came about after a US military intervention. Governments in the Middle East will have to decide to battle ISIS. The US cannot produce a magical military solution. On the home front, targeting Muslims will only create more Muslims who do not feel a part of US society and more "lone wolves".
The Middle East is a mess. ISIS wants Armageddon with US boots on the ground. Netanyahu wants a final battle with US boots on the ground. They both want the US in a forever war.
ISIS is a cult, with no connection to Islam. This is why President Obama avoids the term "radical Islam" because ISIS is not Islamic.
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/11/3566181/why-isis-is-in-fact-no...
The battle is a war of ideas that has no US military solution.
If you have a US military solution, we would like to hear it.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 12/08/2015 - 9:00am
Whether the US should or should not send in troops to the Middle East (or anywhere else) is a serious question that merits informed debate. You can't have informed debate if you refuse to admit the facts.
Islamic militants will go on killing Americans even if you pretend they don't exist.
by Lurker on Tue, 12/08/2015 - 5:51pm
ISIS is a cult, with no connection to Islam. This is why President Obama avoids the term "radical Islam" because ISIS is not Islamic.
That's simply not true. I understand why Obama and other democratic politicians avoid terms that may antagonize moderate Muslims. It's probably wise from a public relations standpoint and I do support that attempt to differentiate. But we are not politicians here and have no need to spin. How does the Wahhabi version of Sharia law as practiced in Saudi Arabia differ from Sharia law as practiced by ISIL? Dozens of criminals are beheaded yearly in Saudi Arabia for offences as minor as theft, drug use, blasphemy, or apostasy. Women are buried up to their neck and stoned to death for adultery. Bloggers are lashed. Often the headless corpses are crucified and displayed for days. Large crowds gather to watch the executions.
While not all Muslim nations practice a version of Sharia as brutal as Saudi Arabia or ISIL it's certainly not uncommon. So I don't see how you can claim that ISIL has no connection to Islam when it's practices are so similar to Saudi Arabia and it's beliefs so like Wahhabism.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 12/09/2015 - 4:50am
It simply is true that ISIS/ISIL/Boko Horam Etc are cults. Religion is just a prop to justify the evil in their hearts. Most wars are not religious in origin. In many wars religion is used to justify an evil act. The interpretation of religious texts has more to do with the personal belief of the interpreter than the underlying message. During the Civil War, churches preached about the truth of Biblical slavery, while others preached about the message of freedom from bondage in the Bible. The Baptist church and the Methodist churches split over differing Biblical interpretations of slavery.
Donald Trump is a Protestant of convenience spewing homophobia, misogyny, bigotry, and racism. Saudi Arabia has a brutal elite class that remains in power by supporting clerics who allow acts of brutality. Take way the prop of religion and you would still have brutal people doing brutal deeds.
I suspect most frontline jihadists have not read the Quran
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 12/09/2015 - 1:15pm
Saudi Arabia has a brutal elite class that remains in power by supporting clerics who allow acts of brutality.
That also is not true. The Wahhabi clerics don't allow acts of brutality by brutal elite rulers, they insist upon them as demanded by the Koran and Islam. Periodically over the years a particularly brutal execution has captured the attention of the world and `brought about international condemnation. The rulers have sought to mitigate this condemnation by finding some moderate path to compromise. Every step of the way the religious leaders have fought them. Since large majorities of the Saudi people are Wahhabi and support the Wahhabi interpretation of Sharia the Saudi rulers cannot simply ignore them.
I have no idea what's in a person's heart of hearts, how much behavior emanates from their truest beliefs or how much emanates from political expediency. But by their actions over the years it appears as though the Saudi rulers are less conservative than the Wahhabi clerics and adherents. Take away the religion and it appears as though the Saudi rulers would be less brutal.
I don't see how you can claim that ISIL has "no connection to Islam" without also saying that Wahhabism and many of the other sects of Islam have no connection to Islam.
I suspect most frontline jihadists have not read the Quran
I suspect it's the only book they read. All reports I've read indicate that most jihadists have memorized many large passages of the Quran and can quote it fluently to justify their actions.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 12/09/2015 - 3:09pm
Here is a link to an article with statements from a psychiatrist who interviewed jihadists and an FBI interrogator. Memorizing passages is meaningless. It is just a prop. There is little detailed understanding of the Qoran.
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/03/mehdi-hasan-how-islami...
Islam is a prop. The desired Caliphate is a political entity.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 12/09/2015 - 3:46pm
The Saudi Wahabbists actually reject other interpretations of Islam.
They cherry-pick the Quran to satisfy their bloodlust.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 12/09/2015 - 4:22pm
Of course the Wahhabists reject other interpretations of Islam. Just like ISIL. So again I'll ask what is the difference between both the practices and theology of Saudi Wahhabisn and ISIL?
By the way different sects rejecting the interpretations of other sects is common. The Sunnis reject the interpretation of the Shia and they both reject the interpretation of the Kurds and the Wahhabis. That's why they are different sects.
As Christianity was forced by secular forces to conform to modern norms the different sects have minimized their disagreements and moved toward unifying under the rubric of Christianity. The disagreement between sects of Christianity were much more heated in the past. The Baptists were fervent supporters of Freedom of Religion due to their persecution by Catholics and even other protestant sects. Even today if you pay attention to internal discussions among Christians you'll find sects that reject the interpretations of Christianity by the Mormons, even to the extent of calling them devil worshippers. There's also rejection of the interpretations of Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, etc. Many sects don't even consider the Unitarian Universalists Christian at all in spite of their decidedly Christian history and the arcane and often trivial disagreements over Christian doctrine that caused them to form their own sects and version of Christianity.
So I really don't see what your point is in pointing out that Wahhabis reject the interpretation of other Islam sects and what it has to do with this discussion.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 12/09/2015 - 5:18pm
The discussion is about Islam. ISIS and the Saudis have their own take on Islam. Other Muslims disagree. If you label a group Radical Islam, you legitimize them as representing true Islam. You create a war with Islam benefiting ISIS. ISIS wants the US in conflict with Islam.
Jihadists can be labeled as terrorists who kill Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, etc. You can point out that jihadists bastardize the Quran. You deny the terrorists a religious identity. You do not target an entire religion and make practioners of that religion feel unwelcome.
The guy who killed people at a Planned Parenthood center mumbled something about "baby parts" maybe he identified with Evangelicals who feel that abortionists should be killed. He does not represent Christianity. The guy who slaughtered people at a Charleston church does not represent all White people. The couple who slaughtered people at a center for disabled people do not represent Muslims in the United States.
If you somehow feel the need to put the tag of Muslim on someone following a cult have at it. ISIS will love you and Donald Trump.
On the issue of Saudi Arabia. The US has supported some evil governments. We are trying to work a deal with an atheist murderer named Putin regarding Syria and ISIS. The US works with evil people. The Saudi Royal family can't be touched because if the royals go what replaces them is not going to be better.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 12/09/2015 - 5:36pm
This is ridiculous. Not just what you're saying but the things you claim I've said that I have never said. This is about Islam and your claim that, "ISIS is a cult, with no connection to Islam." That statement is objectively false and is not rationally defensible which is why you have spent all your time in this sub-thread attempting to run away from it.
I have spent most of my time in this thread discussing Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism because the parallels to ISIL are so strong. Wahhabism is as much a part of Islam as Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, Unitarian Universalists and many other Christian sects are a part of Christianity. It's a significantly larger part of Islam than the Amish are of Christianity.
But Wahhabism isn't the only part of Islam with significant parallels with ISIL. The Taliban in Afghanistan was largely the same. While the national government of Pakistan is more modern in it's legal system the local governments enforce a version a sharia that is similar to ISIL and Wahhabism. It's estimated that about 1000 Pakistani women are stoned yearly and while it doesn't have federal sanction there is little to usually no punishment at any level of law enforcement and is unofficially sanctioned by the government.
To claim that ISIL has no connection to Islam one must also claim that a significant minority of Islamic sects and state enforced sharia law in several countries have no connection to Islam. For political reasons Democrats and a decreasing minority of republicans single out ISIL as un-Islamic and never mention the parallels with Wahhabism and many other Islamic sects. That is probably wise from a political and public relations stand point but it's not true.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 12/09/2015 - 10:27pm
Muslims get to decide what represents their faith. Christians reject support of slavery, bombing of abortion clinics, and homophobia. They receive a different message from the Bible. There was a person who posted on dagblog as a Christian who gave a distorted view of Christianity. That poster received heavy pushback from Christian posters at dagblog.
Robert Deer, the man who killed 14 people at Planned Parenthood, was an avowed Christian. You will not find Christians who will say that Deer acted in a Christian manner. Ireland allowed a pregnant woman to die rather than perform a life-saving abortion. This is not a Christian act.
Catholics were reviled a century ago because they were said to be infiltrating the country. They were called Papists or Romanists. Catholic JFK had to prove that a Catholic deserved to be President of the United States.
Muslims reject ISis/ISIL. ISiS has killed Muslims who disagree with a distorted view of Islam. Your laughable view says that Muslims who reject ISIS/ISIL ideology are meaningless. You might be on stronger ground in your revulsion over executions if the United States was not in the top five countries executing people. The top five are Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, the United States, and Iraq.
Muslims in America reject the pseudo-Islam practiced by ISIS.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/us/muslims-in-america-shattering-mispercep...
For Muslims in the United States , ISIS is blasphemy. On the other hand, a majority of Republicans are bigots when it comes to Muslims
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/262656-poll-major...
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 12/09/2015 - 11:35pm
This report from the Daily Beast notes that Saudi Arabia is a police state. The number of beheadings has dramatically increased this year. The murders come in the setting of a threat from ISIS and Al-Queda, and Sunni dissent. Most killings have nothing to do with religious crimes but seem to be geared to sending a message that dissent will not be tolerated given external threats. Journalists and bloggers get caught up in the mix. Religion is a prop in the government beheadings
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/18/100-beheadings-6-months...
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/10/2015 - 12:03am
Muslims get to decide what represents their faith.
Really? It seems like you and Obama are deciding it for them.
Christians reject support of slavery, bombing of abortion clinics, and homophobia.
Really? I've read a number of articles that claim that homophobia is a large problem in a majority of Christian churches, especially in the Mormon church and many black churches. Have you decided they aren't Christians? The reality is that if a vote were taken among Christians to determine what is "true" Christianity your liberal version of Christianity would receive the least votes.
Ireland allowed a pregnant woman to die rather than perform a life-saving abortion. This is not a Christian act.
Really? This happens with some regularity not just in Ireland but in other fundamentalist Catholic nations, particularly in South America. Are you now claiming that the Irish Catholics and South American Catholics aren't Christian? Are they members of cults with no connection to Christianity?
Muslims reject ISis/ISIL.
Really? In my reading there seems to be much disagreement over that. At what point can some Muslims decide that other Muslims are not Muslims? 50.1%? Or does it take a super majority? If that were the case the Sunni Muslims would decide all non Sunni Muslims were not Muslims. Then the larger Sunni Muslim sects would start deciding that the smaller Sunni Muslim sects were not Muslim.
ISiS has killed Muslims who disagree with a distorted view of Islam.
Many Muslim sects have murdered Muslims that disagree with their version of Islam. A death sentence for blasphemy isn't uncommon in many Muslim nations. I don't see your point.
Your laughable view says that Muslims who reject ISIS/ISIL ideology are meaningless.
I have said no such thing. It's an indication of desperation that you feel a need to lie. This behavior is quite common with you when you have no rational arguments and your attempts at diversion fail.
You might be on stronger ground in your revulsion over executions
I have expressed no revulsion. I've simply pointed out that the practices and theology of ISIL are nearly the same as the practices and theology of Wahhabism, the Taliban and other Muslim sects and that if you claim that ISIL has no connection to Islam you must also say that Wahhabism and a significant minority of Muslims sects have no connection to Islam. It's a ridiculous view, like attempting to claim that Mormons and Unitarian Universalist have no connection to Christianity. But then, many Christians do try to make that claim despite all the evidence.
Muslims in America reject the pseudo-Islam practiced by ISIS.
Muslims in America comprise the most liberal Muslims on Earth and also the smallest number. It gives us very little information about what the world's population of Muslims think about anything.
I'm certainly no Islam or Arab scholar but it's clear you have spent almost no time reading or studying Muslim or Arab nations history. You're far too clueless to even make cogent arguments on the subject and engage in rational debate. You should study more before you attempt to discuss the issue.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/10/2015 - 5:57am
Ocean-kat, I provide you with links. You give opinions citing what you have read. A test case for the black church and community came in Maryland. A vote to legalize same sex marriage was conducted in Maryland. After President Obama's support of same sex marriage, polls noted 55% of blacks supporting Gay marriage. The majority of black legislators voted for the Gay marriage measure. Attempts to overthrow the law using the black church failed.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/you-cant-equate-your-sin-my-...
Gay marriage passed in majority black D.C.. The measure was supported by a majority of black DC council members.
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/in-dc-blacks-were-crucial-to-ga...
I provide links, you provide opinion and insults. Laughable.
Wahhabism (Salafism) is a bastardization of Islam. The battle we face is a battle of ideas. Fighting a war on Islam will fail. Fighting the idea of jihadism is a better idea. Jihadists murder Muslims. Muslims can reject jihadists.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/10/2015 - 8:37am
Here is another link, this time to an article noting that ISIS rejects the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia and is actually attacking the Saudis. It also notes the lack of religious knowledge of most terrorists. Islam is a prop for murder
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2014/11/wahhabism-isis-how-sau...
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/10/2015 - 9:55am
Ocean-kat, I provide you with links. You give opinions citing what you have read.
You post links because you don't have enough information to address the issue I bring up. Your links don't address the issues I bring up. I don't come here to play dueling links with you. I come to discuss the issue.
So now Wahhabism isn't true Islam.That will come as a surprise to most Muslims who you claim get to decide. And fundamentalist and evangelical Christians are not true Christians. Apparently you're quite a lot like ISIS. All groups that don't follow your liberal version of religion are bastardizations of that religion.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/10/2015 - 1:42pm
Yeah, I'm just like ISIS (weak)
The links I provide note
1) The differences between ISIS and Islam
2) That Salafism differs from mainstream Islam
3) That ISIS is fighting a Wahhabi government
4) That knowledge of the Quran is poor among ISIS members
The most recent link points out the the battle with ISIS is not a battle with Islam
The Saudi government is evil. The Grand Mufti call ISIS the prime enemy of Islam
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/08/19/Saudi-mufti-...
Regarding who is and is not a Muslim, Muslims make the argument that Salafism is not true Islam. Muslims make the argument that ISIS is not true Islam. There is not a consensus.
Christians argue that those who call themselves Christian but support bombing of abortion centers or oppose same sex marriage are not true Christians. There are differences of opinion.
Muslims will tell you that they don't support ISIS when you say ISIS represents Islam. Christians will tell you that they don't support the murderer Robert Deer.
Calling ISIS jihadists does a better job of identifying who we need to target than the statement that we are fighting Islam. Islam is an inaccurate term that includes people of the Muslim faith fighting ISIS. Saying that Robert Deer represents Christians is an imprecise statement. Calling Deer a Christianist or radical evangelical are better terms. If you want to fight terrorism, you need to know who you need to target. Calling ISIS or Boko Horam Islam can only lead to offending practitioners of a faith rather than making them allies.
My point is that we need to be specific in identifying our enemies.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/10/2015 - 2:40pm
FYI - the "don't knows" are scary.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 12/10/2015 - 6:01am
Obviously it's because the don't knows and favorables aren't real Muslims and have no connection to Islam. I'd be more interested in why they have an unfavorable view. Is it because they believe the practices and theology of ISIS's version of Sharia law is un-Islamic or because it's a militant group invading others territory or for some other reason?
by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/10/2015 - 6:15am
Probably the name. Many people could never get into "The The" just because they thought the name childish whatever the music was like - "IS IS" is a bit similar (imagine if Clinton had told Ken Starr "depends on the meaning of the word 'IS IS' - would have been heads popping all over America) . Though it might have been The The's suspected ties to Islam - alwyas had that fellow traveler vibe to me - guess we need a survey to know, even if tells us we don't know.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 12/10/2015 - 7:40am
I recall writing a Libyan friend to comfort & reassure him as the US prepared to invade Iraq over trumped up claims - because in that buildup, the US started fearing all Arabs, all Muslims, worried they'd confuse Libyans with Iraqis.
There are some 1.5 billion Muslims in the world - from the cute oval-faced Malaysian girls in their non-threatening head-garb to the super-friendly & nice young Iranian engineer I do some work with French-speaking Moroccans I'd hang out in cafes with or the Algerian that cuts my hair now, and all those Turkish beaches I'd hang out at, before retreating to the Turk-packed bars at night, or the nice Arab quarter in Bangkok with my favorite Syrian restaurant eating Baba-Ganoosh & smoking a hookah while kids would drag poor elephants through the streets, or the friendly kids in Pakistan who took me to meet their wonderfully proud but shy grandmother and made me tea on a fire in their tent-house with a small hole at the top to let the smoke out.
Every day all these Muslims do their prayers and go about their business in bazaars or normal offices or airports or malls or wherever.
Do I know what drove a Muslim living in the US long-term to fly into a murderous rage, unlike the Libyan whose shop I used to go to every day for years,? Well, on the news they said the guy and his wife had a fight at the event, and then came back with weapons - obviously stocked up for some more sinister purpose (and preferable that he seems to have rushed to use the weapons whether planning for a bigger atrocity.
My friend was just a shop-keeper and his Libyan friend was a student who'd go to the trendy techno/industrial disco and hang out in the cafes. They never killed anyone nor planned it, didn't get radicalized, didn't act any different than anyone else in the crowd I'd hang around - Arabic/French speakers, intellectuals who'd discuss Camus in the same breath as wanting to make their Hajj to Mecca one time in their life, roughly as I'd like to visit Buenos Aires to feel the environs of some of my favorite writers or once felt about Berlin when I was a teen.
I must admit I have trouble associating Muslims automatically with terrorists, as most of the Muslims I've known were professional journalists, and the one Pakistani I hung out most with was into polo, bars and telco business with a rather British demeanor, and another is into software development, loves wine & the ladies, and is far from any sort of fundamentalist.
There are really shitty parts of America - nasty slums in Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans, LA, New York, Washington DC - really depressing places with a feeling of despair. If I focused only on these places - and there are many - you'd never guess that America has a vibrant music scene, creates wonderful movies, has beautiful lands like in Utah and Montana, a tech hub in San Francisco with a strange mix of peaceful humanitarian vibe and money-making greed.
So yeah, we can just say "oh, another Muslim terrorist" after San Bernadino and think we captured it, and expect the Muslim cleric should condemn them immediately as an affront to Islam. But they weren't officially part of ISIS, despite ISIS belatedly claiming them and a tweet the woman made. And these 2 people or the tens of thousands of ISIS believers are a drop in the ocean.of the 1.5 billion Muslims (50,000 would be 0.03%, or 1 in 30,000). One recent poll show'd more people than I'd like approving of ISIS, but certainly not a majority of Muslims, and that's just approval, not people who will actually carry out attacks or are pissed off at the situation around the world.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 12/09/2015 - 2:02am
PeraclesPlease, all this is interesting and unobjectionable, but... so what? So what if the vast majority of Muslims are not involved in violent jihad? That still leaves tens of thousands who are. Do you expect us simply to ignore them?
Despite what militant feminists may think, most men are not rapists. Does that mean we should abandon security checks of men who apply to be teachers in girls' schools or guards in womens' prisons?
Most gun owners are not murderers. Yet how many Dagbloggers would favour unrestricted access to firearms?
Noone (except, perhaps, Trump) thinks all Muslims are dangerous. But some certainly are, and we need to defend ourselves against them.
by Lurker on Sun, 12/13/2015 - 9:50am
Let's just replace the word Muslim with Christian.
So wha if the vast majority of Christians are not involved in violent jihad. That still leaves tens of thousands who are. Do you expect us simply to ignore them?
Because the vast majority of violent acts in America are committed by people who refer to themselves as Christians. So what you wrote up there is just some idiotic bullshit. San Bernadino is the exception to the rule of mass murderers in America. Seriously, why on earth should I be scared of Islamic extremists when the real danger in America is my drunken next door neighbor with his arsenal? Seriously, prove me wrong.
by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 12/13/2015 - 10:09am
I think Trump and the GOP are more dangerous than any Muslim threat in America.
My kids are more likely to die or suffer from some bullshit policy of his - whether firing up more stupid massively-bloody wars, or simply the mass of shootings from dumb, overly-confident and deluded assholes like him who think easy access to and carrying around loaded weapons improves safety when we've known the exact opposite ever since Tombstone, and certainly have witnessed this year.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/13/2015 - 3:08pm
The best way to defend ourselves against fanatics is to identify the fanatics. Identifying what "radicalizes" the fanatics is what is needed. Dog-whistles that end up with arson at Mosques and attacks on random Muslims is dangerous. The GOP is offering dog-whistles and direct dog-barking that target Muslims. When we look for ways to address the small number of fanatics, Conservatives and Republicans have nothing to offer but fear.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 12/13/2015 - 11:25am
Ocean-kat
My position is that we need to be specific in identifying the source I'd a problem. Labeling the problem Islam or Christian does little to focus our attention on where the risk originates.
Robert Dear supports a group that labels themselves Christian but advocates killing abortion providers. Dylan Roof supports a white supremacist Christianity. To label the problem Christian places blame on and targets a large number of people with no connection to the problem. Christianity is not the problem, bastardization of the religion is the problem. Ted Cruz, and Bobby Jindal, attended a Christian conference held by a man who talks about killing abortion providers. That might be a place to start monitoring
Radicalized Muslims who would serve ISIS etc are a specific subset. Labeling the problem as Islam again targets a large group who do not represent where the risk exists.If we think of them as Muslims there are going to be a large number of people tracked for no reason. We have to focus on those who present a risk to society, not all Muslims.Hone in on the bad actors using religion as a prop, not the religion itself.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/08/19/Saudi-mufti-...
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/10/2015 - 5:07pm
I realize this is what you now want to talk about. I've addressed it several times.
I understand why Obama and other democratic politicians avoid terms that may antagonize moderate Muslims. It's probably wise from a public relations standpoint and I do support that attempt to differentiate.
For political reasons Democrats and a decreasing minority of republicans single out ISIL as un-Islamic and never mention the parallels with Wahhabism and many other Islamic sects. That is probably wise from a political and public relations stand point but it's not true.
You use this as a diversion to avoid discussing your asinine statement, "ISIS is a cult, with no connection to Islam." There's no point in continuing since you have not responded to any of my arguments. You consistently take the last word 3 or 4 times when people give up on the attempt to have a rational dialog with you. Is that how you convince yourself you've "won"? Don't you realize I've made what I consider good arguments and that you have not responded to them so I've decided I'm done with the discussion? Other readers can now decide which arguments they think are closer to the truth.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/10/2015 - 5:48pm
I stand by the cult statement
ISIS as cult from the HuffPost
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-hassan/isis-is-a-cult-that-uses-_b_...
ISIS as cult from the Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/26/isis-apocalyptic-cu...
ISIS as a cult from the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3319897/ISIS-ruthless-death-cult...
ISIS as a cult from NewsHub
https://www.the-newshub.com/international/isis-is-the-cult-of-the-suicidal
It is not Islam
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/10/2015 - 6:13pm
Cult is a null value term that denotes the small size of a religion and some prejudice from the larger culture. Mormonism was considered a cult, persecuted, and driven across the country to Utah. And this was before they instituted the practice of polygamy so you can not blame the initial persecution on that. When the number of Mormons became too large and sufficiently wealthy to easily persecute and when it was forced by law to abandon polygamy it became a religion. Just one more example of secular society forcing Christians to conform to modern norms.
Call ISIS a cult if you like. I've never disputed it nor will I, but it tells me nothing about ISIS and much about you.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/10/2015 - 10:01pm
Your definition of cult is limited. You are aware of only one definition. Size does not matter in all definitions of the word.
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cult
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/11/2015 - 9:31am
The cult of Wahhabism does not represent Islam.
http://www.moderndiplomacy.eu/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=134:i...
Wahhabism as cult and its rejection by American Muslims
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/feb/14/20060214-102148-7766r/
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/11/2015 - 9:41am
My suspicions are aroused by the fact that Glick doesn't actually quote Siddiq saying that Israel should be replaced by an Islamic state, or that the "wrath of God" will be visited on the United States. She just claims that he said that. Also, she seems to be engaging in guilt by association.
by Aaron Carine on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 9:17am
Watching and reading the reactions to the rise of the Idea of the Sword of Islam and the Islamic State shows how potent and threatening Salafism is to the frightened Westerner, such as rmrd and many Westernized Muslims here and in the ME. Denial is a powerful emotional response to an Idea who's time has come, it's been incubating for about 1200 years and the Western dominance and humiliation of the last century has given it a classical foreign enemy to oppose, so these pathetic and ignorant reactions were expected but change nothing nor can they stop what is happening.
Salafists have the direct and undiluted or distorted Word of their Prophet before Eastern mysticism and Western shirk diluted his message unlike the Western Fundamentalists cults, some try to conflate them with, who depend on the adulterated, translated and Roman influenced Book.
by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 12:14pm
This is ridiculous. I don't know where you get your crazy ideas from. People are frightened because they hold on to irrational fears. The west hasn't crushed the fundamentalist Muslim terrorists and the nations that support them because it's not a serious threat. It's merely a minor annoying problem. If the whole middle east united and actually threatened the west America and her allies would destroy their relatively small and vastly under equipped armies so brutally and rapidly that it would be apparent just how impotent they are.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 12:55pm
If I can suggest some re-wording, it's a serious but so far infrequent and minor compared to say cancer and traffic fatalities. But we get inured to consistent risks - it's ones that are more arbitrary that seem to rattle us. There is no real protection from a lone nutcake with a bit of resolve and minimal access to weapons. Fortunately, we just don't have to face this very often. In a place like Iraq, where insurgents could mix in with the general populace, they kept the place in tatters for the last 12 years. So far in the US, the logistics are more difficult and the numbers of hostiles is low. So it's an exaggerated problem. My guess it's a bit heightened by our guilt and anxiety over what we've done, but maybe I'm giving our populace too much credit. Anyway, it's not a threat we can send a huge military at. Brzezinski famously dragged the huge expensive Soviet army into an insurgent swamp in Afghanistan, and then we went and did the same with Afghanistan and Iraq, with a bit of adventurism-by-proxy in Libya and Syria. But it's not any different if a Timothy McVeigh or Columbine high school student or Muslim extremist carries it out - and certainly the increased frequency of shootings doesn't help our nerves, even as we continue to do little to nothing behind the gun access problem that enables the psychotic. It will almost assuredly never rise to a major threat, but it can continue to be much more distracting and unnerving than an "annoyance".
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 1:57pm
I guess we can quibble over what is the precise nomenclature for the degree one should fear "terrorism" that kills less people in the US than slipping in the bathtub. Knowing how many people die in bathtubs I do try to be careful and when my parents got older they installed bars and even a little chair in their tub. So I suppose "annoyance" would trivialize the small but very real danger of falling in the bath tub or even the much lesser chance of getting shot by a terrorist.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 2:45pm
Slipping in the bathtub is largely under your control.
Getting shot at an event or cafe by a crazy with a gun is largely unpredictable to you.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/13/2015 - 3:33am
It's good to see you are past denial into anger but saber rattling and exceptionalism aren't as effective as they once were. There are dozens of nations who recognize the real powerful threat of this Idea and many of them are doing what they can to confront it but Ideas are impossible to kill even with massive bombing.
The fact that no one is willing, including Russia, to fight a ground war against the IS forces shows the futility of attacking them in their cities and homelands. The Russians should have learned this fact in Afghanistan and the US military with 140,000 troops couldn't defeat a much smaller and less organized AQI in Iraq so they know what to expect if they return to Iraq or invade Syria. The ground invasion of their territories, by the West and Russia, is exactly what the Islamic State wants because it will inform and anger many of the 1Billion Muslims worldwide who will se it as what it is, an all out attack on Islam by the Infidel Crusaders and they will respond.
Many Muslims may not support the IS and their tactics but few will fight them especially for the West or the corrupt Monarchies, dictators and satraps of the MENA.
by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 3:45pm
I can debate you without mis-stating your position. Why is it you have to lie and distort what other people say when you discuss issues with them? I think it's just an attempt to antagonize them with insults to avoid a serious debate. Instead of discussing the issue you force people to constantly restate the same thing to combat your distortions.
Why would I be angry about something that I don't think is a problem? I'm not suggesting that we mobilize like it's WWIII because as I said I see Islamic terrorism as nothing more than an annoyance. I'm just responding to your claim that Salafism is "potent and threatening. It's clear that if it ever became an actual threat there would be no clash of civilizations. America, France, Germany, and Great Britain alone could crush a unified Middle East Caliphate without a problem. It's not exceptionalism to look at the size of the armies, the quality of the weapons, and the ability to produce more and resupply troops and notice the differences. There's no question who would win WWIII if it was between the west and a Middle East caliphate. No one is willing to commit ground troops because the problem is so small it isn't worth the expensive of dealing with it. If it becomes a bigger problem nations will. It will likely be dealt with before it becomes a real problem simply because governments will be pushed by the public's irrational fear.
If you want to have an actual debate on where we disagree why don't you explain exactly why you see fundamentalist Islam as so powerful and why you're so afraid of rare acts of terror that kill relatively few people compared with all the other dangers faced by daily life, like slipping in a bathtub. We'd have to have 40 San Bernadino's to kill as many people as those who slip, fall, and drown in bath tubs every year in the US.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 7:11pm
My intention was not to lie or distort your position but you seem to bounce between, they are not a real threat and if they are we macho Westerners, who haven't won a war since WW2, can easily stomp the pesky Islamists. The Islamic State is prepared to fight an Urban Guerrilla War which is a war of attrition that the West and Russia have no desire to fight, the costs in casualties is too high as we learned in Iraq no matter the size or equipment of our armies, we use jets and tanks they use IEDs and small shock troops. We left Iraq with a worn out and mentally disabled army but they stayed, grew and conquered a third of the wreckage we left along with about half of Syria.
You are correct that IS inspired attacks in the US or Europe, using the metric of body counts, are not an existential threat but they are not meant to be, they are a psychological and political tool to instill fear and anger in the Homeland of the Infidel. They have already been very effective in assisting us with the destruction of our own Liberal ideals about liberty and freedom and that was their plan from the beginning.
The IS has never made a threat to conquer the West although they do want parts of Europe but they do intend to conquer the Muslim world and that is an existential threat to our civilization that depends on the ME for energy and has dominated that area for a century to control the flow of that resource.
by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 8:41pm
Macho? It's probably a lot more macho to go against the massively superior weapons and training of the US with ied's. There're wars of all different sizes and shapes. We've haven't really fought a war since WWII. What we've fought are peace time actions. No country is seriously ready to fight a fully mobilized real war. No country's public really believes the threat is sufficient for a real war. Yes the casualties are greater than we can sustain for a peace time action but the west could and would absorb much greater casualties if they were convinced a war was necessary. It's not macho or exceptionalism to note that the wealth, weapons, and population of the west far exceeds that of any possible Muslim caliphate. Don't you agree? It's not likely China or Russia would support a Muslim caliphate. If they did the outcome would be questionable but without them a caliphate would have no chance against the west.
Real wars are horrible things for both sides, much different, deadly, and horrible than peace time actions as horrible as they have seemed. No one in Germany was wringing their hands over civilian casualties in London during the blitzkrieg and no one in the US was crying over civilian casualties during the bombing of Dresden. I'm not saying that's a good thing nor am I advocating that approach. I'm just pointing out that real wars that are existential are different than the skirmishes we've fought for political or economic reasons the last 60 years.
Of course our troops were worn out and demoralized. Less than 0.5% of the population is in the military now compared with more than 12% during WWII. Do you truly think if the US and her western allies saw a need to fight a real war and fully mobilized for it the outcome would be in question?
Control of the ME by a fundamentalist caliphate would have been a disaster 25 years ago. Now with newer technology it would simply force us to upgrade our energy supply. There would be a period of contraction and economic strain but it would be doable. It's inevitable that it will happen anyway, eventually. The only real question is will we do it fast enough to mitigate the damages of climate change.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 9:58pm
I agree that we can defeat their military with our military, just as we did so quickly in Iraq, but that is not the same as winning, just like it wasn’t anything like winning in Iraq.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 10:00pm
He has a point with this -
You are correct that IS inspired attacks in the US or Europe, using the metric of body counts, are not an existential threat but they are not meant to be, they are a psychological and political tool to instill fear and anger in the …
Granted, his messaging leaves much to be desired (with obvious intent), but that "the West" feels threatened far more by Islam than our own mass murderers is proof that terrorism works. Until we redefine the word - or, oddly, get back to its definition - we'll remain afraid and reflexive.
by barefooted on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 10:10pm
Yes, I've tried to address that somewhat in previous posts in this thread. The problem is if we over react to irrational fears. I mostly support Obama's approach. No rush, no hurry, slowly tighten the noose and don't over react. There's a few more things I wish he would do. A massive multi country effort to house refugees in the area so that Europe isn't inundated is the most important change I'd like to see. Perhaps a protected area in southern Syria and Jordan or near the Kurdish area in Northern Syria.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 10:57pm
While I agree with your larger initiative, I don't see, or hear (including from candidates that also express that option) logical ways for that to happen. We need ME countries to step up, stop betraying us through the back door and put their own people on the battlefield ... how do we force our hand when geopolitical issues extend beyond terrorist groups? A "safe zone"? What groups and agreements between them would be necessary, and how/who would enforce it?
It's safe to say there are far more questions than answers. The devil isn't just in the details - it's everywhere you look.
Edit: you did a slight edit in your comment that might affect mine; but as it was practically simultaneous I won't argue.
by barefooted on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 11:03pm
Yes, I changed "that we over react" because I meant "If we over react" since we have not yet seriously over reacted during Obama's presidency. He really is even minded and steady as a president. It's one of his strengths imo. Sorry, I'm usually careful about that but I did it immediately and didn't expect a reply so quickly.
I agree it's much more complicated. I have many of the same questions. I'm more of an observer of government's actions rather than one who comes up with detailed plans that I think might have better outcomes. I critique around the edges and suggest minor changes. No one with power would make the radical changes I'd propose anyway so I avoid getting too hypothetical and writing fiction.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 11:20pm
Interesting concept 'upgrading our energy supply', what new techno wonder will replace the nearly 2 Billion barrels of crude oil we import every year, much of it from the KSA and Iraq, to supply our economy's liquid fuel needs?
Even the so called Green technologies will require massive amounts of oil and other fossil fuels to build and at the rapid rate they are being deployed they will only supply enough new power to meet the increase in demand for additional power over and above what we already use produced from coal, gas and other sources. None of these new sources of electricity will actually reduce the need for oil as a fuel for many many decades until electric vehicles become predominant.
The Islamic State conquering the MENA, establishing the caliphate and cutting off much of the West's supply of their oil is probably the only way to, mitigate the damages of Global Warming, but it may already be too late as the climate is changing much more rapidly than forecasted.
by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 12/13/2015 - 1:35pm
You're behind the times - thanks to fracking especially, our oil imports dropped by 45% Y-on-Y, and Saudi Arabia's share dropped from 17% to 11%, or only $7 billion.
Steadily growing renewables & the ability to substitute any energy-base for electric cars over gas will continue to shift need for oil downward.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/13/2015 - 3:23pm
The number of electric vehicles in the US reached 1 Million this year and is growing but the US population depends on the other 244 Million liquid fueled vehicles for over 99% of our transportation needs. Today private electric vehicles are little more than Green status symbols for affluent Liberals many of them actually powered by coal or Nukes.
The dramatic increase in US oil production from tight-oil fields will be short lived they are depleted much more rapidly than conventional oil fields and the Saudis are still producing 10 Million barrels a day to fuel Western civilization and the rising Chinese demand.
by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 12/13/2015 - 4:25pm
If these soon-to-be-depleted oil fields (where have we heard that before?) get us through the next 15-20 years, the electric car industry and the renewables (solar-wind-possibly liquid thorium, etc.) will have us well on our way to needed energy independence and lowered CO2 output.
Funny you can talk about dangers from relying on Mideast oil, but then electric cars are only for Liberals? ironic, eh? Or just counterintuitive?
Saudi Arabia keeps pumping out oil despite the US-led shale glut - perhaps out of spite for other Mideast producers, or to punish Russia. US shale-based production will slow until prices justify producing more - win-win.
In any case, electric vehicles are also much more efficient than internal combustion engines, the ability to scrub emissions at a power plant is greater than scrubbing individual cars, and the delivery of that electricity is less wasteful than tankers lugging gas around the world (especially as energy grids get next generation upgrades).
Expect 10 million/year electric sales by 2030 - that should shake up the oil market pretty well, no? The UK estimates 85% of its energy will be from renewables by 2030. 15 pretty short years.
Don't panic, be happy...
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/13/2015 - 5:55pm
Actually, this Westerner is not frightened. I merely point out that we are nothing facing Islam, but cults who use Islam as a crutch. The cultists want to defeat other Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, Americans, Europeans, Russians, and Chinese. The cultists will lose.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 12/12/2015 - 2:59pm