To infidels, Islam is in a certain sense unknowable, and most of us are content to leave it at that. The vast majority of Muslims don’t conspire to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of their fellow soldiers. But Islam inspires enough of this behavior to make it a legitimate topic of analysis. Don’t hold your breath. We’d rather talk about anything else — even in the Army.
What happened to those men and women at Fort Hood had a horrible symbolism: Members of the best trained, best equipped fighting force on the planet gunned down by a guy who said a few goofy things no one took seriously. And that’s the problem: America has the best troops and fiercest firepower, but no strategy for throttling the ideology that drives the enemy — in Afghanistan and in Texas.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Islam is the nazi party meets scientology, an invented religion to cover for a political totalitarian world conquest ideology.
wildcat84 on November 7, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Don’t jump to conclusions, not yet; the FBI, Obama and Ed said so.
Schadenfreude on November 7, 2009 at 12:32 PM
If you’re non-Muslim, you’ve got three choices as far as strict Muslim adherents are concerned: 1) join them, 2) don’t join them and accept second class citizenship, or 3) don’t join them and die.
ncborn on November 7, 2009 at 12:32 PM
4) Eradicate them by mass forced emigreation works for me.
honsy on November 7, 2009 at 12:34 PM
If you get killed fighting in an Alliance with Christians or Jews you go to hell
William Amos on November 7, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Another place to note that as more and more attacks with this much cultural complexity occur, the United States’s relationship with Islam will become the largest Constitutional crisis in the history of the Republic.
Or we may simply flush ourselves down the cultural drain as Britain has done.
eeyore on November 7, 2009 at 12:36 PM
The National Socialist Democrats are kicking themselves for not passing healthcare yet.
They could have USED this crisis as a “Healthcare Crisis” to move against gun rights.
They could have been out there talking up the National Heath Epidemic of Gun violence all over the place, but if they do that now, they will be jumping the gun (gabbing).
Fake8 on November 7, 2009 at 12:36 PM
The vast majority of Muslims don’t conspire to kill …
No, only the most devout, maybeeeee 1 percent? And 1 percent of one billion issss …
Tony737 on November 7, 2009 at 12:37 PM
I’m not so sure; the majority of Muslims are in the Middle Eastern countries where they take the ideology more strictly. The ideology (as Steyn rightly points out I think) is what poisons these individuals.
I believe it was Winston Churchill who said that “Islam is the most retrograde force in the world today”. This from one of the leaders of the free world when we had to unite against Nazism and later against the Soviets. That’s saying something. It’s about time we take this threat seriously and stop being so fatally PC.
OneGyT on November 7, 2009 at 12:38 PM
BTW, my suggestion of forced emigration would include Simple Simon and his troll buddies. Not to mention every Progressive government official and their supporters.
Cuba, for the latter group, since they love the place so much. Or Venezuela – I am pro-choice on this issue.
honsy on November 7, 2009 at 12:44 PM
FIFY, this is a fallacy. Non-Muslims are killed in Muslim majority countries on an almost daily basis around the world. All done locally but their neighbors. Despite the fact that non-muslims submit to draconian restrictions on their freedoms they still die daily.
Rocks on November 7, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Rocks ~
+ 1,000!
Check out TheReligionofPeace web site for confirmation, trolls!
honsy on November 7, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Where were the Major’s misgivings about association when he was excepting his free education? It is the question that keeps me from believing that this was the action of a deranged individual.
Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Steyn is brilliant and he knows some things about Islam.
clorensen on November 7, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Good grief, excepting should be accepting. Sorry.
Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM
This is because the same thing that is at the heart of radical Islam’s murderous xenophobia is at the heart of all flavors of all religions—hostility to the use of reason in matters of the supernatural.
Two things, and two things only, separate radical Islam from the most liberal interpretations of Christianity: 1) radical Islam defines the sphere to which religion is applicable more broadly (but no more broadly than more conservative sects of Christianity, Judaism, and other major religions), and 2) radical Islam is not swayed by the Enlightenment tradition of tolerance that defanged Christianity at the birth of the modern world.
The beliefs of radical Muslims, judged objectively, are neither more nor less irrational than those of any other religion; they merely extend them to more (read: all) matters of life, and they are more willing to act on them. If evangelical Christians thought they could get away with it, they’d do the same. (Many Americans are not even willing to condemn murder in the name of God; they are willing only to condemn murder in the name of someone else’s God–see, for example, the reaction to Dr Tiller’s slaying.)
If we were honest with ourselves about the root cause of mass murder committed in the name of god, we’d all be atheists. The Western reaction to Islamic terrorism that Steyn decries is merely cognitive dissonance deployed to protect our own pet religions, which in their heyday were no less murderous than Salafism is today.
hicsuget on November 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM
If a Christian had gone crazy and nailed himself to a cross, would the liberal media demand that we act like mindless imbeciles and consider that a complete coincidence? Of course not.
But every time a Muslim does what HIS holy book dictates – and what all of his religion’s most influential leaders are constantly talking about – it’s deemed horrifically “racist” to imagine the possibility what he did has anything whatsoever to do with religion!
Instead, the media are all talking about how this proves that psychiatrists and military officers must be gosh-awfully prone to go on suicidal shooting sprees. Yeah, THAT is clearly the common thread here in these cases.
logis on November 7, 2009 at 1:01 PM
If the Nazis or commies had had a god would they have been able to gain the same protected status as Islam, ~since Mohammad’s “faith” is essentially the same kind of totalitarian movement aiming to overthrow the non-Muslim world and install a global gulag?
Islam is fascism (super-unified statism) with an “Abrahamic” face.
Used to delude the passive, idealistic Judeo-Christian suckers and woo the fascistically-inclined anarchistic/anti-capitalistic enablers of Islamic conquest among us.
Steyn is too kind to this malign “creed”.
profitsbeard on November 7, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
Connie on November 7, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Yeah, believing that, and crossing your fingers, and chanting “There’s no bears out tonight…” will keep you safe
Sloan Morganstern on November 7, 2009 at 1:19 PM
To clarify the purpose and reasoning behind Muslim behavior in the world is surprisingly quite easy. Yet almost none take the step of educating themselves on the basic structure of Islam. You don’t have to memorize or unlock anything hidden. Just read the Qur’an casually until you start to feel a coldness in your soul and realize the enormity of the evil behind the words. Muslims are the first and prime victims of Islam. We just have to live with them, they have to live as them.
Here is a simple place to start.
BL@KBIRD on November 7, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Don’t be silly. There’s nothing in the Bible that says “kill the infidels.” Christ did not condone killing of non-believers. Mohammed and the Koran specifically and unequivocally advocate and call for the killing of infidels. It is the central tenet of Islam.
Just because some Christians kill people doesn’t mean that Christianity is a violent religion that condones killing. On the other hand, muslims that are not killing are apostates, they are going against Allah’s will; He has commanded them to kill the non-believers.
July 10 on November 7, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Cool. Maybe you can get some tips from the Nazis; you know, concentrate the victims in camps and then ‘evacuate’ them to the east.
Grow Fins on November 7, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Ever read the Old Testament?
hicsuget on November 7, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Fins
Will you act on my suggestion about educating yourself about Islam?
BL@KBIRD on November 7, 2009 at 1:28 PM
You’re focusing too much on “form” and not “content”.
Grow Fins on November 7, 2009 at 1:22 PM
I think we need to take care of people like you first. The Muslims will still be there when we’re done with you. Only at that point, they’ll know we mean business, after seeing what we did to people who are nominally of our own culture.
venividivici on November 7, 2009 at 1:29 PM
There are a couple of “one-off” commands to kill non-Jews, nothing in the way of a general commandment good for all time. At worst, you can say that the Old Testament does allow certain actions be taken with non-Jews, but not with Jews (taking of interest comes to mind and I’m sure there are marriage restrictions as well).
venividivici on November 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM
What does Steyn hope to gain by an official declaration from our government and society that Islam itself is the problem?
Sure, it would be honest, but is that really the best policy in this case?
Lots of muslims don’t realize (or aren’t up for) their sacred duty according to Mohammed. Attacking the murderous ideology of Islam will only make those muslims that are either unaware or uncertain about jihad completely certain that Islam demands they kill the infidels.
Most muslims are barely Islamic. Muslims understand very, very little about the intentions of their religion.
Why would we want to help muslims understand that their calling is to kill us all?
July 10 on November 7, 2009 at 1:32 PM
My favorite is the book of Leviticus. Full of gross rules for body emanations. Most Rabbis and Reverends skip over it with relief.
Mohammed read all these books before he slapped together his doctrines in the Qur’an. If you notice the spin he puts on Jewish and Christian thought you can see the discrepancy and intent to use spirituality and politics to bind the soul in ignorance, cruelty and aggression.
What you are doing hicsuget is called” tu quoque”, a tool all Muslim “scholars” use to distract and alter the argument with a lot of “whataboutery?”
What is your personal interest in running cover for Islam brother hicsuget?
BL@KBIRD on November 7, 2009 at 1:38 PM
If you knew anything about Nazi history, or Islam, you would have learned they belong together. They were allies… but you don’t live in the world of the Logical Obvious Facts. You’re nothing but an Ignorant Broken Puppet Monkey Troll who feeds off of mockery and ridicule… Eat up @$$hole.
ronnyraygun on November 7, 2009 at 1:38 PM
In the West, we operate under the assumption that knowledge is a good thing. Muslims who were confronted with this knowledge would then be able to make a rational choice to either remain Muslims or leave the religion behind. If they are decent people, they will repudiate the religion that demands such things of its adherent.
venividivici on November 7, 2009 at 1:41 PM
You should either:
A) learn how to label your insanely overblown and utterly asinine sarcasm, or
B) forget how to type.
I have absolutely no way of guessing which it is. But it’s one of those two.
logis on November 7, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Not only that, Mohammed basically said that Judaism and Christianity were both originally…Islam. So, where Islam and Judaism and Christianity differ, we are supposed to assume that Islamic doctrine was “original” and that it was only due to corrupt rabbis and priests changing it that the Old and New Testaments differ from the Koran.
So, the “tu quoque” argument actually ends up pointing right back at Islam as written in the Koran.
venividivici on November 7, 2009 at 1:45 PM
It doesn’t seem to be the most devout — it’s more like the the ones that slacked off previously, and have been convinced that there is no way to avoid hell without dying in jihad.
I get the impression that the entire Islamic Terrorism thing, worldwide, is basically a result of some kind of culture shock and the fact that the religion has a violent “get out of hell free” card.
Count to 10 on November 7, 2009 at 1:46 PM
First, as you said, these were “one-off” commands and were a judgment on those inhabiting the land of Israel who were doing benign things like sacrificing their first born to pagan gods by burning them as babies, alive, as tribute to Molech. Nowhere does even the Old Testament tell the Israelites to go out into the whole world and either convert or slaughter unbelievers. Even the actions itemized against the non-Jews were for within the land of Israel and for the most part were directed against previous inhabitants of the land, not those passing through it for trade. In the New Testament, it is even clearer — Christians are to to into the world to convert people, but by telling the Good News, not by the sword.
Hicsuget is either one of those who hates all religion and tries to equate actions of some who have used religion wrongly or is trying to run cover for the islamists.
AZfederalist on November 7, 2009 at 1:52 PM
It really isn’t “kill the infidels” with the Old Testament: its “kill competing civilizations.” Though really the stories about it were probably more of bravado by a group of elites that were being returned to the area to rule it for the Persian Empire.
Count to 10 on November 7, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Yes, people are flying airplanes into buildings because of David Hume, Charles Darwin, and Bertrand Russell.
Let me see if I understand this. If they thought they could get away with it, evangelical Christians would fly airplanes into buildings, shoot soldiers, and blow up stuff, because they’re upset about the use of reason in supernatural matters. I must say, if the PC response to the latest shooting is an example of the vice of defect, your response is an example the vice of excess. Whereas some people are loathe to blame religion at all, you’re only too eager to blame all religions and slander all religious believers.
Just a word about the Enlightenment: it was far more skeptical about the fruits of reason than any religion ever was. To wit, the attack on natural theology was an attack on using reason in supernatural matters. Thinkers like Hume and Kant didn’t bring reason to bear on religion; rather they limited the scope of reason and attempted to close off the possibility of rational discourse on matters of religion.
Bill Ramey on November 7, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Why do you think Bush called Islam the “religion of peace?” You think it’s because he was just so politically correct? No, it is part of a larger strategy.
We want muslims to think that maybe bin Laden is wrong and Islam is “the religion of peace.” Then hopefully, they’ll never actually realize that bin Laden is correct and Islam calls for killing of the infidels.
9/11 was not only an act of jihad but was designed by bin Laden as a wake-up call to all muslims to join with him in the jihad. Thankfully, our government didn’t take the bait. Instead, we pretend that Islam is just like any other religion with a few nutters. Meanwhile, we kill as many jihadis as we can over there. And for the most part, capture the ones plotting over here.
July 10 on November 7, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Ever read the Old Testament?
hicsuge
Indeed, but you obviously have not. Non-Jews were killed when the Jews under Joshua conquered the land that God had promised them – but ONLY if they refused to vacate the land on their own. Having neighbors that worshiped idols, practiced theft, murder and adultery was not acceptable.
But these savages were permitted to carry on with their perversions ELSEWHERE.
Something I wish we could do with the Hollywierd crowd – like Roman Polanbski and his supporters.
honsy on November 7, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Atheism has just about the craziest theology of any cult — which is saying an awful lot. Unlike Islam, which summarizes its hatred of all other beliefs into a single screed, The Religion of Liberalism just keeps making it up as they go along.
That would be bad enough if they made up THEIR OWN beliefs as they went along. But they keep those perfectly concealed – even from themselves – by denying that that the things they believe are “beliefs” at all.
Instead, liberals constantly make up the beliefs of others, attack those. And then, to top it all off, call everyone ELSE in the world “hypocrites” for not believing any of the things they say we believe.
logis on November 7, 2009 at 1:56 PM
logis ~
Remember folk music from the ’50’s and 60’s? It often included Negro spirituals about Moses leading his people to freedom.
I can’t imagine any modern folk singer covering such tunes today. He would be vilified by his fellow Leftists for mentioning God and the Bible at all.
The rules for acceptable music change from decade to decade according to this “religion”.
honsy on November 7, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Could you please refrain from slandering all of us non-believers by grouping us with the religion of communists idiots?
Count to 10 on November 7, 2009 at 2:02 PM
And atheist Marxists had this little book that caused them to kill far more people in 50-70 years than Christians had killed within centuries, more ruthlessly.
The Bible requires proper understanding, and explicit in the text is the the rules for the new covenant are different from the old. Now, the Jews were murderous during the age of Joshua, establishing the kingdom of Israel, but for 300 years before the birth of Christ the Jews were not conquerors but resisters. The Jewish tradition was “defanged” long before the Renaissance. Jesus re-introduced no such conquering principle–and Paul forbids it, and James strongly forbids it.
So you can shove your historical narrative.
Axeman on November 7, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Dead on.
What more could be added?
Itchee Dryback on November 7, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Why can’t atheists remember that these are the only times when a mass of atheists held power–or that atheism was the state policy? Is that too hard to factor in there? Or are you like the Marxists in that, yeah it went bad the last 5 times we try it, but if we try it here, it’ll be different.
With Marxism the check is always in the mail. It’s possible that the next Marxist regime will be different, and thus it’s possible that there can be a good atheist regime (but I strongly doubt it), but it shouldn’t be the default assumption. That’s very liberal to believe that people who observe the Marxism of the past aren’t giving the latest movement in Marxism a “fair chance”. I think what many atheists have never examined is how much the failure of Marxist regimes come from their quintessential atheism and anti-traditionalism.
Axeman on November 7, 2009 at 2:12 PM
The vast majority of Muslims in the west are indeed simply here to try and better their lives and would like nothing more that to live in peace and give their alms to Islamic charities when due. These are the milch cow Muslims. They go about their lives paying lip service to the ideology in a constant state of insecurity. There is no clear path to heaven for a mild peaceful Muslim and it is a struggle to know how to please God. There is much made of the Mujaheddin in the verses and going out in a blaze of bloody glory for Allah is a surefire front row ticket to the warriors new task of breaking hymens for eternity. For the common Muslim it is not so easy and the path is full of contradictory pitfalls. They are pawns to be used and milked by the “radical extremists”. Common Muslims have no firm stage from which to question or condemn the actions of more fervent Muslims. Knowledgeable Muslims who are devout are fully aware of their duties to undermine and induce rot into their hosts societal structures. But they are almost invisible among the mass of common Muslims which is the very reason for having the harmless ignorant ones among us in ever growing numbers.
They have used this slow bleed method as a common tool for the past 1400 years in combination with naked aggression when possible.
Like the old dish soap as skin softener commercial….”your soaking in it right now”
BL@KBIRD on November 7, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Marxism is just another religious cult. It only seems like atheism because it’s mythology is specifically without a supernatural deity, and it persecuted other religions. It doesn’t matter how many times you “try it”, it is based on blind faith in a peculiar economic fantasy.
So, again, please stop grouping “real” atheists with Marxists.
Count to 10 on November 7, 2009 at 2:28 PM
I don’t know…
That seems to be a more post-Ottoman-Empire thing, when it became clear that Muslims could not expand any farther by force of arms. Before that, there wasn’t much spread of Islam except by conquest, though I’m not sure how it went in Indonesia.
Count to 10 on November 7, 2009 at 2:33 PM
I vehemently beg to differ…
http://thereligionofpeace.com
.
SilverStar830 on November 7, 2009 at 2:38 PM
I have no such interest–my interest is in defeating it, and I think the best way to do that is to supplant the superstition that lies at the heart of it with reason, rather than with a rival bronze-age superstition.
hicsuget on November 7, 2009 at 2:42 PM
I never said a single word about non-believers.
As for the “grouping together” part, I will tell you the exact same thing I tell every penis-deprived individual who claims that making fun of “Feminists” is the same thing as hating all women: I’m not the one who’s grouping idiots together; YOU are.
logis on November 7, 2009 at 2:43 PM
The other 99 percent just hand out sweets when they do. That and rioting over cartoons, demanding foot baths at the airport, taking offense over piggy banks, oppressing their women…
Disturb the Universe on November 7, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Yes. So, what does Steyn hope to gain by convincing our government and society to expose the truth behind Islamic ideology?
What possible good can come from officially telling the jihadists in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that they are correct about the central tenet of Islam and the non-jihadist muslims in those countries are wrong?
This is why Bush officially called Islam “the religion of peace” as part of a larger strategy.
July 10 on November 7, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Plus Allahpundit told us all to calm down, let’s not forget that.
Sharke on November 7, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Didn’t take long for the reprobate anti-christian bigot to come out. You truly have educated yourself into imbecility.
daesleeper on November 7, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Then what do you call this?
Count to 10 on November 7, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Radical Muslims call Hasan “An officer and a gentleman“.
Schadenfreude on November 7, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Really? What’s the strategy? How will we know when it’s working? What are the metrics?
venividivici on November 7, 2009 at 3:24 PM
How many Muslims are fighting the terrorists.
Count to 10 on November 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM
This depends on your definition of “decency.” For muslims to speak out against Islam is most indecent. It is decent to kill the infidels.
July 10 on November 7, 2009 at 3:30 PM
How many Muslims are fighting the terrorists.
Count to 10 on November 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Muslims can’t “fight the terrorists.” The jihadists are fulfilling their sacred duty according to Islam. To speak out against killing infidels is speaking out against Islam itself.
July 10 on November 7, 2009 at 3:32 PM
I call Atheists, “Atheists.”
The term “non-believers” would apply to those who don’t particularly care about religion one way or the other.
And there is no overlap between those two groups.
logis on November 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Normally, those two would be synonymous. All atheism means is being without a theistic construct — not believing. Marxists, communists, all the way down to hard leftists, all have their own belief systems, and I think you are calling them atheists simply because they believe in the non-existence of your god.
At any rate, not all of us who would accept the label of “atheist” are leftist lunes.
Count to 10 on November 7, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Actually they do have a “strategy”, to pretend that Islam is not what it is, the Ostrich “strategy”.
MB4 on November 7, 2009 at 3:55 PM
In other words: “Don’t all of you crazy-ass Christians, Jews and Mormons start randomly gunning down everyone who worships a different religion from you.”
First of all, thanks heaps for that ever-so-very-necessary bit of advice. We’ll all try really, really hard to not act like homocidal lunatics – for a change.
Strangely though, despite the upwelling of gratitude filling my heart right now, I can’t help but notice that – as always – the Official Warning once again goes out to everyone on planet earth EXCEPT the people who worship the same religion that keeps telling these serial killers to do what they keep doing.
logis on November 7, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Right now, it is working. We still get oil from Saudi Arabia. Pakistan is not in a nuclear war. A small percentage of muslims are active in the jihad. Terrorism on American soil is rare.
Declaring war on Islam itself would likely change all of those facts.
(but yes, it would be more honest… Islam is most assuredly at war with all that is not Islam.)
Most muslims are not hot for jihad, Bush calling Islam the “religion of peace” has given them a way out, while we continue to kill the jihadists over there, and for the most part foil the plots and capture the jihadists over here.
July 10 on November 7, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Army Chief of Staff (MacArthur’s Old Job) Is Worried About … Guess What?
I reference MacArthur in the headline because of the famous exchange between MacArthur and FDR after MacArthur, then Army Chief of Staff, learned that FDR was cutting the army budget to fund New Deal programs.
MacArthur said to Roosevelt, “When we lose the next war and an American boy is writhing in pain in the mud with a Japanese bayonet in his belly, I want the last words that he spits out in the form of a curse to be not against Douglas MacArthur but against Franklin Roosevelt.” FDR was enraged, and he said, “Never speak to the President of the United States that way.” And MacArthur offered to resign, but Roosevelt brightened and said, “No, no, Douglas, we must get together on this.”
That was a long time ago.
In the wake of the “Allahu Akbar” slaughter of infidels at Ft. Hood (there I go again, “jumping to conclusions”), today’s Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey is worried but not so much, to paraphrase MacArthur, about American boys writhing in pain in the mud with Muslim (or should I say “psychiatric”?) bullets in their bellies. With some 3,500 Muslims in the in the US armed forces, Gen. Casey is concerned about … anti-Muslim backlash.
“I would say I fear it,” General George Casey, US Army chief of staff, told reporters at Fort Hood.
Casey said he had told leaders not to “rush to judgment or speculate until the investigation comes out.
“I do worry slightly about a potential backlash and we have to be all concerned about that.”
Threat levels have not been raised at US bases, and Gen. Casey has made no mention of being even “slightly” worried about copycat attacks. (I wonder if the Ft. Hood attack was in any way inspired by the Helmand Province attack by an Afghan National Policeman that left five British troops dead and British troops “mentoring” the ANP “on edge.”)
WHAT IS WRONG WITH GEN. CASEY?????????
Answer: The same thing that is wrong with Gens. McChrystal, Petraeus, etc. They are all zealots of political correctness. Otherwise, they would never have been promoted in this man’s — I mean, this person’s — army.
Where are the Washingtons, the Grants, the Shermans, the Pattons?
Gone With the Wind.
MB4 on November 7, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Then, hey, here’s an idea: get a different label.
Seriously, how complicated is this?
Do you insist on referring to yourself as “a gay man” because you are generally happy and filled with mirth? I hate to break it to you, but that’s just too God-damned bad. Get over it; move on with your life; and quit blaming OTHER people for the fact that everyone always gets the “wrong impression” about you.
logis on November 7, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Ralph Peters called him a maggot.
MB4 on November 7, 2009 at 4:20 PM
No American President ever publically called Communism “the economic system of peace.” And bragging that no nuclear weapons are exploding right now was never adopted as the bellwether of ultimate success.
We appeased Communism, and it grew. We opposed Communism, and a large chunk of its governmental enforcement collapsed.
Not the theology itself, of course. The crazy-ass belief in a government-enforced Collectivist Utopia is as widespread as it ever was, and we must always be aware of that. But as a global threat, it currently controls a tiny fraction of the influence it once had.
logis on November 7, 2009 at 4:28 PM
So I guess we are just supposed to tolerate the occasional mass shooting in the name of jihad “over here”?
See, this is exactly another reason why we need to split the US into two countries. That’d give you a chance to play out your asinine strategy in your own country.
It’s funny that you think Bush has that much influence over Muslims. If Al-Azhar in Cairo were to declare jihad a current duty for all Muslims, Bush could scream “religion of peace” until the cows come home and it wouldn’t matter. You idiots think you’re so clever with your “strategies” when all you’re doing is kicking the can down the road. If you could, I’d tell you to ask the now-extinct religious communities of the pre-Muslim Middle East how that worked out.
venividivici on November 7, 2009 at 4:35 PM
True enough, which is why we should stipulate that, for Western Civilization’s purposes, “decency” is defined as not wanting to “kill infidels”. Can’t agree to that, there’s plenty of other places in the world to live. Don’t want to agree that we should stipulate that, then you are not a Westerner and you are just as unwelcome as those who want to kill infidels. If we need another Western “civil war” just to clear the way to solve the Muslim problem, so be it.
venividivici on November 7, 2009 at 4:38 PM
I think we can all agree that Obama CAIRs.
silenced majority on November 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM
I think we can all agree that Obama CAIRs.
silenced majority
. . . and scares.
honsy on November 7, 2009 at 4:59 PM
That is an interesting take on it. Nine out of ten people have little interest in world events or politics. Bush put them back in sleep mode every other month with a shower of praise, love and respect for Islam. That is why he did it. Muslims don’t need a najis kuffar like Bush to convince them they are spectacularly special. When your a member of a supremacist ideology, feeling superior comes naturally.
BL@KBIRD on November 7, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Yes and people will have to get used to that. Nothing can be done and it can’t be wished away. India got used to it, Britain and the rest of Euroe are getting used to it and it is only right that one of the biggest Muslim nations in the world get used to it too.
If you need help to tolerate what will become semi regular, they say Islam is chock full of tolerance.
BL@KBIRD on November 7, 2009 at 5:17 PM
euroe=europe or land of the Eloi
BL@KBIRD on November 7, 2009 at 5:20 PM
I fear that this murder spree will not change one thing. None of the other ones have.
The Army will probably recruit more radicals, just to prove to CAIR that they are not “racist.”
PattyJ on November 7, 2009 at 6:00 PM