Explosions in Stockholm: Suicide Bomber Threatened Swedes, "Pig" Mohammad Cartoonist

Two explosions rocked the downtown shopping district in Stockholm this evening as holiday shoppers crowded the chainstore-clogged area around Drottninggatan. According to early Swedish media reports, a car parked on the busy shopping street exploded at just after 5PM today, wounding two passersby. Two minutes later, say investigators, a second explosion was heard from a nearby street, where police found a bag stuffed with nails and the body, it appears, of the bomber.

According to this report in the tabloid newspaper Expressen, the Swedish security service and TT newswire (the Swedish equivalent to the AP) received a threat "against the Swedish people" ten minutes before the explosions. In a letter and audiotape, the bomber wrote that "Now your children, daughters, and sisters die like our brothers and sisters die." He continued:

Our actions speak for themselves. As long as you don't stop your war against Islam, and you degrade the Prophet, and your support for that stupid pig [cartoonist Lars] Vilks."

The bomber cited the Swedish military's involvement with NATO in Afghanistan and "threatened" those serving there. According to Expressen, the letter also urges Muslims to fight back against "Islamophobia" in Sweden, presumably by murdering Swedes, and calls on "all mujahadin in Sweden and across Europe" to rise up. As is typical with semi-literate religious fanatics, the attack, it would seem, was a massive failure. The only death was the bomber and, from the photographs floating around in the Swedish press, property damage seems to be minimal.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Vox Imperatoris||

    I don't understand how one can manage not to kill *anyone* with a suicide bomb. Just walk up to someone and press the button!

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    It's hard to get good help.

  • Some other guy||

    =WARNING=

    do not cross this line

  • cynical||

    The Swedish FBI doesn't bother taking their patsies to trial.

  • Ice Nine||

    >>"I don't understand how one can manage not to kill *anyone* with a suicide bomb. Just walk up to someone and press the button!"

    The wisdom of the late Moshe Dayan has been borne out yet again. Asked to reveal his recipe for winning wars, Dayan replied with a soldier's crisp brevity: "Fight Arabs."

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Somehow that "strategy" did not worked out well for the Soviet Union and United States.

  • cuernimus||

    Afghans aren't Arabs.

  • Achmed the Dead Terrorist||

    You don't get a chance to practice!

  • BeltwayLurker||

    The Assange Avengers work better in virtual than in real.

  • Yup||

    Wait, which order are you suppose to do that?

  • Some other guy||

    =Warning=
    Do not cross this line.

  • Hobie Hanson||

    Scary. This is why we need to have security measures no matter how unpleasant we might find them.

    Can you imagine how bad this would have been if it had happened inside an airplane?

  • Jingles||

    We need to do something about car bombings on planes!

  • ||

    Well, they could pack the beverage cart full of nails and roll it down the aisle in the middle of the kosher meal.

  • ||

    No need, the kosher meal will kill you anyway.

  • ||

    What, you don't like tasteless matzah ball soup with some Gefilte fish and tzimmes on the side? What kind of anti-Semite are you?!?

  • Herschel Rabinowitz||

    Be a mensch, Episarch, not a schmendrick.

  • ||

    I never got that. Airlines do know that modern, non-Eastern European style dishes can be kosher as long as the ingredients are kosher, right? I honestly can't tell if that is what they think kosher food is or that's what they think Jews will like. Either way, it's dumb.

  • ||

    I never got that. Airlines do know that modern, non-Eastern European style dishes can be kosher as long as the ingredients are kosher, right? I honestly can't tell if that is what they think kosher food is or that's what they think Jews will like. Either way, it's dumb.

  • ||

    Well you know I just HAD to click on this to see what idiotic babble you came up with that was supposedly inspired by moi.

    And I can't say I was disappointed. Incoherent, grammatically retarded, and pointless! You just leave me speechless, rectal.

    Seriously, what does any of this have to do with Juanita? Wow I've spoofed Juanita a couple times for laughs, you caught me! Retard.

  • ||

    Dude, never, ever click through to rectal's site. It's what she wants, so obviously...don't do it. Plus, of course it's incoherent and grammatically retarded; look at her posts here.

  • ||

    2139?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • ||

    There is nothing that can compel me to click through to your blog, rectal. Nothing. I will never be complicit in your blogwhoring. Also, I prefer to read stuff that isn't insipid garbage.

  • ||

    Yeah I won't be making that mistake again. I'm pretty sure once you've read one rectal excretion you've read them all, anyway.

  • ||

    If you think that's actually me, you're even stupider than I thought possible. Well, maybe not. I have a pretty high estimation of your stupidity.

  • CatoTheElder||

    In Israel everybody gets wanded or patted down before they can enter a mall. Big Sister needs to one up the Israelis and install pornoscanners at every mall entrance! We all must surrender outdated notions of "iberty", and "freedom", and "privacy" and face the reality of a never-ending war on terror.

  • cynical||

    You can have my iberty when you pry it from my cold, dead ands.

  • ||

    Nah, just need to PROFILE for muslims for those extra screenings. Sorry, but the usual PC BS does NOT work; need to step up to the plate you touchy-feelie liberal wonks.

  • boomshanka||

    i dunno. i we were to profile people based on the probability they will kill civilians it's likely to be americans in uniform. :-(

  • Bucky||

    right, right. let's see... how many Islamo-fascists have blown up, murdered, and honor-killed how many civilians?

  • BeltwayLurker||

    Persicuting rhem for their beliefs is supposed to be wrong.

  • V||

    But them persecuting us who value Freedom rather than Submission (yes, Islam literally means Submission to Allah) is alright?

  • boomshanka||

    probably fewer than killed by us, though we intentionally make it difficult to measure the extent of our responsibility for civilian deaths.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Citation Needed

  • boomshanka||

    we don't know the precise number of civilians killed by the US, because the military doesn't provide that info. though wikileaks disclosed docs that showed some 15,000 additional civilian deaths caused by the US.

  • Bucky||

    wow, not millions and millions served?

  • memomachine||

    Hmmmm.

    We have an astonishingly precise "right to privacy".

    Gay sex and/or abortion? A-OK.

    Not having a federal agent handling my "junk"? Not a chance, junk handling is required.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    What kind of homophobe are you objecting to Gays handling your bits?

  • boomshanka||

    shockingly, the "war on terror" has eroded our civil liberties.

  • Bucky||

    no just general incompetence and acting like a fireman...

  • Bobby||

    Oh yeah? Well in Israel my tour guide carry an Uzi in public, with the weapon in full view, without wearing a military uniform. Besides, it's a basic libertarian concept that your freedom ends where my nose begins. Nobody has the right to enter a private shopping mall and Israel faces real danger from Arabs that like to go boom. Oh, and I don't know where you get your information, but the last time I was in Israel I wasn't patted down when I went to a shopping mall.

  • ||

    And I'd also add that tour guides are actually required by the government to carry a weapon during tours.

  • db||

    Was it a full size UZI or a Mini-UZI? The full size is great but heavy. The Mini has a much higher rate of fire but is more convenient for use as a PDW.

  • ||

    Yes Bobby is correct here, not all (and I'm pretty sure not most) shopping malls are guarded by metal detectors.

  • ||

    Or in a crowded TSA line. I'm kinda surprised that hasn't happened yet.

  • ||

    Is that more surprising then the fact that the TSA has never caught a terrorist?

  • Spur||

    We could withdraw from Afghanistan.

  • DDavis||

    "As is typical with semi-literate religious fanatics, the attack, it would seem, was a massive failure. The only death was the bomber ..."

    Failure? Suicide bomber kills himself and no one else? I call that "Mission Accomplished".

  • CatoTheElder||

    Does he still get 72 virgins?

  • Yes, but all bearded males.||

  • 72 Virgils||

    Yew got a purty mouth, Ahmed!

  • C'mon Virg'||

    makem' squeal like pig!

  • .||

    The only death was the bomber...property damage seems to be minimal.

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

  • You're||

    kidding, right?

  • ||

    Anonypussy is incapable of not being passive aggressive.

  • Dr. Anony||

    Poor Episiarch. Too much internet has rotted his brain.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    He couldn't get syphilis from the internet. Must have been the dog.

  • Dr. Anony||

    Might have been the monkey.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    He has the AIDS now too?

  • Dr. Anony||

    Maybe he got it from one of his cats.

  • ||

    It's really hard to keep arguing for toleration of Muslims and their rights--in the face of violent Muslims targeting innocent civilians in the name of Islam...

    ...but it's just like sticking up for the rights of pornographers, abortion practitioners, dog-fuckers, etc. I guess.

    I wonder if the Muslims who perpetrated this violence realize that trying to murder innocent people like that puts peaceful Muslims on a list with pornographers, abortion practitioners, dog-fuckers...and others who--at best--should tolerated despite it all?

  • ||

    It's not hard to tolerate a Muslim that isn't trying to kill you...

  • Hobie Hanson||

    They're not trying to kill you? I don't hear Muslims denouncing this latest act of terror, do you?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Do you know any Muslims?

  • cynical||

    You need to pick a troll persona and stick to it. Swapping between socialist and neocon is making me dizzy.

  • Hobie Hanson||

    I'm not a socialist. I'm a Joe Liebermann Democrat.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That's not much of an improvement over being a socialist, Hobie.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    So merely a statist then.

    Got it.

  • ||

    "I'm a Joe Liebermann Democrat."

    Oh, a fascist, then? Gotcha.

  • ||

    That's like expecting the NRA to hold a press conference every time some nut goes postal. I really don't need a press conference to know the NRA isn't responsible for what every nut does with a gun--but then I'm smarter than the average bear...

    Regardless, I've heard Muslims denounce terror in Mosques when I was the only non-Muslim there. ...in no uncertain terms. I suspect very few people despise terrorists more than those who are so often wrongly conflated with terrorists.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    What's that Chris Rock routine?

    "The only people who hate Niggers more than white people are black people"?

    Something like that. Either way, I'd bet that the same philosophy holds true. "The only people who hate Muslim Terrorist Fucktards more than innocent civilians are Muslims who aren't terrorist fucktards".

  • ||

    Yeah, it's the same kinda thing.

    I feel that way about some people who call themselves libertarians! Sometimes I tell people--if you're gonna go around saying stupid shit? Don't tell people you're a libertarian...

    'tell 'em you're a progressive or, better yet, a Baptist!

  • Bucky||

    ...or better yet a Baptist!"
    sheesh, who is this guy...the new Don Rickles. nobody's safe...pornos, baby killers, dog f*ckers, NRA, Lefties, Postal workers, Libertarians, muslims, even bears...

  • Dave||

    +1

  • robc||

    libertarian and baptist arent mutually exclusive.

    Case in point...me.

  • The Mossy Spaniard||

    And all this time I figured I was the only one.

  • ||

    I grew up absolutely fundamentalist myself--we were so fundamentalist, I was taught that Baptists were to be pitied for unwittingly still being under the influence of the Pope.

    I have no problem with libertarian Baptists. I still argue that Christianity was the soil libertarianism grew in. ...but I'd rather the rest of the world associated "stupid shit" with somebody other than libertarians.

    It was supposed to be half funny.

  • V||

    Tyranny by God =/= libertarianism

    If Heaven were run by angels and not by God in a dictatorial fashion, maybe being a libertarian Christian would not be oxymoronic.

  • lunchstealer||

    Read about Roger Williams and the concept of separation of church and state. Modern liberalism owes a great deal to Christian thinkers. That said, Liberty University is anything but, but that doesn't mean all Christians are theocratic fucktards (just a very vocal plurality).

  • ||

    Indeed!

    And admonishing your followers that in paradise, no one will be the Attorney General--that the Kingdom of God is a heavenly kingdom--within you?

    That goes back even farther than Roger Williams.

  • ||

    All God's creation cries out for freedom.

    If "Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you", and "If you've done so unto the least of these, you've done so unto me", isn't the essence of libertarianism, then I don't know what is.

  • ||

    What is wrong with pornographers?

  • Yonemoto||

    If not for pornographers, I assure you about half of the scientific discoveries made in the last three decades would never have happened. Well, we probably would have still discovered arsenic based life forms.

  • ||

    Well, they're new, they're Canadian...and they suck. All those things are wrong. Very wrong.

  • Professional Critic||

    But Neko Case is awesome.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Don't worry about him. Epi has the worst taste in everything.

  • ||

    Hey! I at least have the right opinion on Michael Bay.

  • ||

    Epi likes to watch Mystery Science Theater 3000 with the commentary turned off.

  • ||

    Epi likes to watch Mystery Science Theater 3000 with the commentary turned off.

  • ||

    "Dear Counselor Troy...I waited for you at Denny's but you never showed."

  • ||

    Final Sacrifice?

  • ||

    Hey fuck you, I love The New Pornographers!

  • BeltwayLurker||

    One round of milk for all!

  • ||

    "What is wrong with pornographers?"

    All sorts of things.

    One of the best things about being libertarian? Is that you get to criticize stuff without anybody thinking you want it outlawed.

    Pornography is mostly disgusting. The stuff that isn't demeaning to women is often demeaning to men--albeit unintentionally.

    It's made to exploit people's basest behaviors--and that's just talking about the people who buy it!

    Oh, and did I mention I give money to charitable organizations that fight for free speech and free press rights--organizations which presumably defend the rights of pornographers too?

    I think pron is disgusting--and that consenting adults have every right to make it and buy it too.

    I'm afraid Islam is becoming something like that in the minds of many. Something disgusting that should be tolerated despite it all. Pron was one example, but I gave others.

    If only these terrorists understood they were making a lot of people in the West think of Islam the same way so many think of pron!

  • Bucky||

    damn, what is this "Pron"? thought i knew about everything base and disgusting. i've been missin out!

  • ||

    Terrible comparison. The people you mention are reviled for what they do.

    Muslims are apparently reviled for what other people who happen to have the same religion do.

  • ||

    That's not really the same thing. The religion of the terrorists is not some sort of coincidence, it's the central part of why they're doing what they're doing.

    Of course, that doesn't mean non-terrorist Muslims deserve any blame for it, but it isn't the same thing as just people who "happen to have the same religion." That implies the terrorists' religion is coincidental to their activities, and that's obviously not true.

  • shrike||

    This is why Christ-fags are just as bad as Muslims who blow shit up.

  • Louis Farrakhan||

    Shut the fuck up, white devil.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Shriek always manages to bring the industrial-strength stoopid.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    No better example than the DC abortion clinic riots and car bombers today by the Crusaders, right bubba?

  • Meh||

    How is that "obviously not true"? It seems pretty obvious to me that either their religion is orthogonal to their terrorist activities or they are practicing a completely different belief system than the rest of Muslims.

  • cynical||

    Not really. If you imagine that every person has some Terrorism rating that, when it exceeds a certain threshold, causes them to go out and start trying to murder random people, then Muslims seem to get a bonus on that number. But whether or not that bonus pushes them over the limit depends on other factors, like personality, circumstances, etc.

  • ||

    Do you think that maybe -- just maybe! -- the disproportionate number of terrorists being Muslim might have something to do with the different character of US foreign policy towards the Arab world as opposed to say, Christian or Jewish countries?

    I'm not excusing terrorist tactics here, but an Israeli or an Italian has much less reason to quarrel with America than an Iraqi does.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Short answer: No.

  • ||

    Ah. The vaunted "la la la la I'm not listening" defense.

  • Jeffersonian||

    I'm listening, but your post didn't merit more of an answer.

  • ||

    "Do you think that maybe -- just maybe! -- the disproportionate number of terrorists being Muslim might have something to do with the different character of US foreign policy towards the Arab world as opposed to say, Christian or Jewish countries?"

    Umm, no. If anything, Arabs have a great reason to love us. Their only positive contribution to the world is oil, a luck of the draw in geography and geology. Who buys more of their oil than the West? Where have their billions come from if not Western countries? Odd that they seem so intent on biting the hand that feeds them. If not for us they would still be raiding each other's trade caravans.

    And what is the different character of US foreign policy to the Arab world when compared to Christian or Jewish countries? I think when you say "Arab world" you really mean the Muslim world in general. We gone to war for and against all types of countries. We've defended and protected many Muslim countries, even some who have no oil.

    If you asked Jihadis and got an honest answer out of them, or actually listened to things they say, I think you would find that their war against us is a religious war. Nothing short of converting to Islam will stop their attacks. Tomorrow we could nuke Israel for them, after a day or two of celebration their full attention would be turned on the West.

  • BWM||

    How about, instead, we ask noted experts studying Al-Queda, for example, who note that said group is a loose confederation of smaller groups of angry young men upset at US actions in their lands? Sure, we've been in a lot of wars, but since the end of WWII, we've made it our policy to mess with the middle east, going so far as to overthrow many of their popular governments, and then arming tyrants like Saddam.

  • ||

    Umm, no. If anything, Arabs have a great reason to love us. Their only positive contribution to the world is oil, a luck of the draw in geography and geology.

    Uh, ever heard of mathematics? The scientific method? Yeah, umm that wasn't us. That was the Arabs.

  • Bucky||

    cool! you saw that NASA video too!

  • robc||

    Sure...algebra...but I notice neither Newton nor Leibnitz was an Arab.

  • ||

    Yes, but they would be nothing if the Arabs hadn't preserved and extended mathematics through the European Dark Ages.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    PEM, that just shifts the attacks from all of us to hot chicks in miniskirts and men in miniskirts.

  • Adam||

    Wow, short memory much?

    Apparently, you're forgetting that period between the fall of the Roman empire and the Renaissance.....there's a few hundred years where *ALL* of the positive contributions in the world were coming from Muslims.

  • sevo||

    "Do you think that maybe -- just maybe! -- the disproportionate number of terrorists being Muslim might have something to do with the different character of US foreign policy towards the Arab world as opposed to say, Christian or Jewish countries?"
    So it's OK to be a terrorist if you don't like the foreign policy of another country?
    And is Saudi Arabia a Jewish or Xian country?
    Oh, and it was Sweden....

  • ||

    I answered your question in the part of the comment that you neatly excised from your quote.

  • sevo||

    Yeah, you tried to cover your ass with a comment I didn't bother to quote.

  • ||

    What's the causality here? Maybe US foreign policy is different toward Muslim countries because of terrorism.

  • ||

    The US was playing with the Middle East like little kids play with sandboxes long before Islamic terrorism became significant. Shit, we were already overthowing democratic governments and installing dictators there all the way back in 1953 (Iran).

  • robc||

    The US was playing with the Middle East like little kids play with sandboxes long before Islamic terrorism became significant.

    True, but Ive noticed a distinct lack of Chilean terrorist attackes against the US.

    So, despite a similar or greater middling in Catholic latin American countries, those attacks havent occured.

    Is there a difference between catholicism and islam that explains this? Is it a difference between arab culture and latin culture? Is it luck?

    I believe in the blowback theory, but it doesnt seem to be universal. I think there is a "Islam bonus factor" involved.

  • Amakudari||

    Is there a difference between catholicism and islam that explains this?

    Well, for sake of argument, we can look at Northern Ireland until recently or Eastern Europe during the 30s (not Catholic, but Eastern/Russian Orthodox is close enough). We've also had Christian Identity movements that were strongly associated with groups like the KKK.

    I wouldn't put it on the same scale as Islamic terrorism, but Christian terrorism existed even though it's more or less nonexistent these days. And maybe Islam does catalyze terrorism better than Christianity, but even in the cases above, to me religion seems more like a catalyst or unifying force than the initial cause.

  • Brian D||

    "Do you think that maybe -- just maybe! -- the disproportionate number of terrorists being Muslim might have something to do with the different character of US foreign policy towards the Arab world as opposed to say, Christian or Jewish countries?

    I'm not excusing terrorist tactics here, but an Israeli or an Italian has much less reason to quarrel with America than an Iraqi does."

    Ah, well that clearly explains the attacks in Sweden.

  • JoshINHB||

    Do you think that maybe -- just maybe! -- the disproportionate number of terrorists being Muslim might have something to do with the different character of US foreign policy towards the Arab world as opposed to say, Christian or Jewish countries?

    So anger over US foreign policy makes Arabs blow up other Arabs at a wedding in Jordan?

    Wow, their even bigger dumbshits than you if that's true.

  • boomshanka||

    actually that's something we have in common, because the us military seems to blow up a lot of arab weddings.

  • pmains||

    actually that's something we have in common, because the us military seems to blow up a lot of arab weddings.

    False moral equivalence. The US military does not target wedding parties. OTOH, Muslim terrorists purposefully target innocent people in the same way that abusive parents will occasionally smack their kids for no discernible offense. It's about scaring the hell out of anyone who might object to their lunacy. I.e., it's terrorism in the truest sense.

  • ||

    since muhammad create the concepts of genocide and jihad in the seventh century i don't u.s. foreign policy had alot to do with it. what is happening today is a continuation of what muslims have done since the inception of the religion.

  • BWM||

    Then why is it new? We had peace and trade with the Muslims for centuries (on and off, of course, because of both sides). The US had total peace with the Muslim world between the quasi-war with the Barbary pirates and the Gulf War (or maybe start with the Iranian Revolution). Something changed; to simply point to the founding of the faith and not account for all the history in between is a selective reading.

  • johnl||

    I don't care who a quarrel is with, suicide bombing is a collateral damage maximizing tactic.

  • boomshanka||

    except in this particular case, i suppose

  • blubi||

    Some of these terrorists are from a 100% Western background who converted to Islam, though they are a minority.
    Israelis and Italians don´t go ballistic over caricatures, not the nonmuslim ones.

    It doesn´t take much to understand where a jihadi is coming from, basic knowledge of the life and work of Muhammad is sufficient. Pretending he was a peaceful man and his religion has been "hijacked" by extremists is wishful thinking from people programmed to believe that all religions/cultures are "equal".

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yeah, that's why we're always getting those Panamanian and Chilean and Vietnamese terrorists over here all pissed off at what America did in the past. Not.

    And don't give me this 'overthrowing democratic governments' shit. Mossadegh was a two-bit pajama clad hysteric who abolished the secret ballot and assumed emergency powers indefinitely. That's how he got so 'popular'.

  • BWM||

    That's because they found a better way; grow the drugs we hate, smuggle them in, and have those dumb americans pay for their mansions. And how did the Shah get overthrown in the first place if he had no popular opponent? Although, I agree, it's not only democratic governments we helped overthrow.

  • V||

    How would the murders of Buddhist monks and Thai girls in Thailand be explained then? Or the Bali bombings?

    AFAIK, the Buddhist Thai and the Hindu Balinese have not committed any attacks on Muslims, yet they are treated in the same way as US allies.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I would argue the latter, unless you're willing accede to the idea that Crazy Fuck Abortion Clinic Bombers practice the same belief system as your average church-goer.

  • shrike||

    There is NO difference between a "peaceful" Baptist going to his retarded church service, and Erick Rudolph. Both are just as evil.

  • SPLC||

    There is NO difference between a "peaceful" Ron Paul supporter, and an abortion-clinic bomber.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Well, then they might as well bomb the fuck out of everything if that's the case.

  • ||

    So Eric Rudolph's abortion clinic bombings were actually imputable to Christianity, since he claimed his Christian religion as his motivation.

  • Jeffersonian||

    It's not as shallows as you posit. One has to actually look to see if what someone like Rudolph is saying is true before you can make that determination. IOW, do the teachings of Christ and/or Christian doctrine encourage such behavior?

    The answer in Rudolph's case is no. It's not so clear with our Johnny Jihads.

  • ||

    Are you even passingly familiar with the history of Christianity after AD 325 when Christians actually gained power? It doesn't exactly resemble a hippie commune.

    And there is plenty of fodder in both the Old and New Testaments for visiting violence on unbelievers, if we want to quote verses as you no doubt are going to do with the Koran. "Do not think the Son of Man came to bring peace to the world; he came to bring a sword."

  • sevo||

    Tulpa|12.11.10 @ 8:49PM|#
    "Are you even passingly familiar with the history of Christianity after AD 325 when Christians actually gained power? It doesn't exactly resemble a hippie commune."
    Yep. Pretty nasty, those Xians. For some reason (the Enlightenment?) they sorta stopped that.
    Are you familiar with the history of Islam since, oh, 625AD?

  • ||

    Not coincidentally, the Enlightenment was also the beginning of the end for Christianity's political influence in Western civilization.

    And yes, I'm well aware that Islam's followers have perpetrated atrocities in their history as well. Any religion or ideology that comes into power will provide such examples. I was refuting the assertion by Jeffersonian that Christianity doesn't encourage violence.

  • sevo||

    Tulpa|12.11.10 @ 9:04PM|#
    "Not coincidentally, the Enlightenment was also the beginning of the end for Christianity's political influence in Western civilization."
    And so Islam is excused, right?

  • ||

    And of course, the secular post-Christian powers in Europe haven't exactly behaved themselves well either. At the rate they're going, it would take militant Islamic terrorists about 2000 years to match the death toll from the activities 20th century European powers.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It's not a particular human institution, it's ALL human institutions.

    Institutionalized religion, government, etc are all the same.

  • V||

    Unless they get their hands on a nuke. It only takes blowing up one in Times Square to almost equal Hitler's dubious record of 6 million Jews dead in the Holocaust.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Using that yardstick, we should blame every ecoterrorism event as an extension of... Al Gore's non-fiction book?

  • Jeffersonian||

    Old Testament, yes, but what are you pointing to in the NT? I think that's a load of nonsense, Tulpa.

  • BWM||

    Problem is, it's not the New Testament that matters; it's the Church. The bible was not regarded as quite so sacred as it is now; Papal pronouncements were more relevant, and they tended to involve loads of military campaigns and intolerance. Whether or not the New Testament would support the crusades (not just the ones in Israel, mind you) is irrelevant; it was still 95% motivated by the Catholic Church, and would never have happened without that religious veneer.

  • Robert||

    I was just thinking a month ago about how silly Protestantism was, to fetishize the New Testament "as opposed to" the very church that produced the New Testament. However, a friend I told that to made the point that was the Protestants mostly did was stir up Gentile interest in the Old Testament, which the Catholic Church wasn't particularly interested in.

  • ||

    Your friend is pretty flatly wrong about that. Luther actually threw out several books of the OT that failed to conform to his revised version of Christianity (both books of Macabees, Wisdom, Sirach, parts of Esther, Daniel, and Tobit).

    Seriously, most of the Sistine Chapel is paintings of Old Testament events and people.

  • BWM||

    It didn't even produce anything; it just looked at dozens if not hundreds of books and picked the handful it liked. They don't even have evidence of who wrote any of them, and some of them contradict one another.

  • ||

    "Do not think that the Son of Man has come to bring peace to earth; he has come to bring a sword"

    "The kingdom of heaven will be rife with violence, and the violent take it by force."

    "Caesar does not wield the sword in vain."

    All these come from the NT.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Those are some careful and convenient cribs there, Tulpa. What Christ was saying there in the first citation was prophecy, not commandment.

    The second, I'm not sure where you got the citation, but the NIV, KJV and others have it in the past tense and are descriptive, again, not as a commandment.

    The last describes the State and is a mandate to enforce just laws, it is not a command for individuals to murder.

    Poor examples, Tulpa.

  • Brandon||

    The quoted "...to bring a sword" is from Revelations, if I'm not mistaken.

  • blubi||

    Christianity is in essence a benevolent religion, due to both its basic message (turn the other cheek) and history (to ceasar what belongs to ceasar). A slave ideology.

    Christians have committed atrocities, such is human nature. But imagine that Jesus had waged war, had his opponents murdered and imposed his will on the sword instead of dying on the cross. Christians would then be acting like jihadis, and you would be clutching at straws looking for anything objectionable in say, Buddist writing, to try to equate them.

  • BWM||

    That's what Christians DID do for 1000 years. The crusades (and I don't just mean the middle east ones, I also mean the ones in Spain, eastern europe, even France) were basically Christian jihad. The problem wasn't which religion, the problem was religion period; an irrational superstition. Secular, non-religious thought, at least as applied to the public sphere, is what fixed that.

  • ||

    The Crusades were largely reactions to Islamic incursion.

  • ||

    "That's what Christians DID do for 1000 years. The crusades (and I don't just mean the middle east ones, I also mean the ones in Spain, eastern europe, even France) were basically Christian jihad."

    You conveniently leave out that said Christian Jihad was to drive occupiers out of what the Christian believed were their lands? I am not excusing the Christians for having had their own problems, but I am damned tired of people that use the misdeeds in the name of one religion to excuse the fact Islam is a violent combination of laws, politics and religion, all wrapped up in the most twisted package possible. There isn’t anything peaceful about Islam, and everything it does is to force the ultimate goal of subjugating all the people of the whole world. There is no way for Islam to reform, and it always returns to violence to spread. The sad thing is that we have lost the will to stop it as it had been in done in the past, and it’s only going to hurt us all.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    So World War 3 in the Middle East killing all/most Muslims or annhilation (...somehow...) at the hands of the dreaded Terrorists? So in essence you support the genocide of people you believe support our genocide. Sounds like a consistent set of morals to me. Tell me how the Blitz goes on the Saudi coast.

  • sevo||

    Yep, and every other Xian just closed their pie-holes, right?

  • ||

    Most Christians never even addressed it.

  • sevo||

    Most didn't have to; some did.

  • ||

    Why do Muslims "have to"?

  • sevo||

    How 'bout ONE?

  • err||

    sevo is monumentally stupid and obtuse sometimes I think he's Tulpa's sock puppet. I also wonder how many minutes it takes him to think up these one sentence replies.

  • ||

    Stop with the ignorance; Rudolph claimed no such thing. In fact, he claims not to be a Christian. Want proof? Go here:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/n.....tone_x.htm

  • BWM||

    BS; psychopaths who endorse violence to promote their agenda don't have to be Muslim. Before Muslim terrorism started spreading the 70's, we had both fascist and communist groups doing the exact same thing. In fact, Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers used to be the world leaders in suicide bombings. It's the pissed-off and frustrated people from the middle east blowing stuff up, and if they couldn't fabricate a justification out of Islam, they'd turn to flat-out fascism to justify it (and in fact, it was the Nazis who largely helped push for the radical mentality they have now).

  • ||

    "Terrible comparison. The people you mention are reviled for what they do."

    You don't think Muslims are reviled?

    Anyway, the point wasn't that Muslims are just like pornographers, abortion practitioners and dog-fuckers...

    The point was that this kind of terrorism puts Muslims on a list where they don't belong--a list with people they don't want to be associated with...

    I find myself making the same kinds of arguments for tolerance of Muslims that I make for all the rest.

    This sort of terrorist activity, in other words, is highly counter-productive if the point is to make the West more respectful of Islam.

    "Our actions speak for themselves. As long as you don't stop your war against Islam, and you degradation of the Prophet, and your support for that stupid pig [cartoonist Lars] Vilks."

    ...and trying to make the West more respectful of Islam really does seem to be their point. Instead, they're associating themselves in the Western mind with various degenerate practices that should--at best--be tolerated...

    It's not that complicated.

  • ||

    My point was that pornographers are despised for making pornography, and abortionists are despised for performing abortions, whereas Muslims are despised by some for happening to be of the same religion as someone who does terrible things. One of these is not like the other; maybe you need to catch up on your Sesame Street.

  • ||

    That's right, Tulpa.

    Muslims don't belong on the list--but the terrorists are puttin' Muslims on that list in a lot of people's minds--even though they don't belong there.

    I thought I said that the first time. I definitely said it the second time. But just so you know? Now you're definitely up to speed.

    Congratulations.

  • ||

    Nonsense. You said from the start that it's "hard" for you to defend Muslims. Obviously you feel sympathy with the religious bigots you halfheartedly defend them to, otherwise you wouldn't find it hard.

    I don't find it hard at all to defend Muslims. If anything I'm embarrassed to be in the presence of someone so illogical that they think Muslims are in any way responsible for what other Muslims do.

  • sevo||

    "I'm embarrassed to be in the presence of someone so illogical that they think Muslims are in any way responsible for what other Muslims do."
    I don't think that. I think that if there were 'moderate' Muslims, they'd make some sort of comment about that. They don't.
    So, while I certainly don't hold them responsible for their whacko brethren, I'm less than convinced they don't sorta agree.

  • ||

    Do you have the same attitude toward Christians who haven't come out and condemned Eric Rudolph's bombings?

  • sevo||

    Yes,
    Both of them.

  • ||

    Riiiight. All but two Christians have come out and condemned Eric Rudolph. I must have missed that -- maybe you can link to the video on YouTube.

  • Liberal Douchebag||

    Uh... um... Eric Rudolph was, uh, more terroristy than all, uh, Muslims combined!

  • SPLC||

    All non-liberals = the next Eric Rudolph.

  • sevo||

    "...I must have missed that..."
    And judging from your comments, that's a long ways from all you've missed.

  • BWM||

    Yes, they do, and every so often, a publication will go out of it's way to make a list of examples. But it's boring news, so we don't hear it much.

  • ||

    It's hard to defend dog-fuckers too!

    I should say this--it's easier to defend Muslims than it is to explain simple concepts to you...

    I stand by my first, second, third...every statement I've made.

    The terrorists are making it harder to defend the rights of Muslims in the West. People in the west are starting to treat Islam like pornography--or anything else that's generally considered disgusting, but people should be allowed to do.

    The terrorists shouldn't want Islam on that list, but that's the ultimate effect of what the terrorists are doing--they're putting Islam on the list of things the West defends only reluctantly. ...in the minds of many.

    There isn't anything controversial or hard to understand about that. Do the terrorists want Islam on that list along pornography and dog-fucking?

    ...notice, that is not, has not and never will be saying that dog-fucking is the same thing as Islam. ...and if the terrorists want the West to respect Islam, then they should stop doing counterproductive things that make a lot of people in the West think of Muslim rights that way. ...think of respecting Muslim's rights as--at best--a necessary evil.

    I don't think of Islam that way, but I think more and more people in the West are starting to see Islam that way.

    Thus endeth the lesson. Thus spake Shultzathustra.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Abortionists?

    Can we at least use a real word, like say, DOCTOR?

  • ||

    Doctors don't kill humans, at least not intentionally.

  • BWM||

    "Doctor Death" ring a bell?

  • ||

    Yes, so abortionists are doctors.

  • ||

    Amazing. I wonder what's so magical about a vagina that transforms a lump of cells with no right to exist, which can legally have its skin burnt off with chemicals and/or have its skull crushed and/or be dismembered on a whim, into a human being with the full gamut of natural rights.

    Since we all know that pro-choicers are much more rational than pro-lifers, there must be some rational explanation for this. Faerie dust sprinkled on the vagina, perhaps? Though, there's the troubling issue of C-sections, where the cellular lump doesn't pass through the vagina before becoming human. Maybe there's a little sprite that travels from the vagina to the surgical incision and sprinkles the faerie dust there too?

    Anyway, there must be some rational, scientific explanation for this, but until we find it, let's just assume it's OK to continue chopping up anything that hasn't passed the magical finish line yet.

  • ||

    "Anyway, there must be some rational, scientific explanation for this, but until we find it, let's just assume it's OK to continue chopping up anything that hasn't passed the magical finish line yet."

    Personhood's a fluid concept. Humanity's made that value up as it goes along--I have no problem with that.

    But there are some head-scratchers out there--which seem to amount to ye olde, "If she weighs more than a duck, she must be a witch!"

    For instance, there's the bit about how you can't kill a fetus--because it's a person, but you can't bury a stillborn baby in consecrated ground?

    I wasn't raised Catholic, so maybe there's some explanation that's escaping me here, but that doesn't seem to add up...

    The baby's innocent life, so you can't kill it--but if you do? It can't go to heaven because it wasn't baptized--so God's gonna burn it in hellfire? And that's all good 'cause...?!

    I'm sure I went off track there somewhere, but some part of that equation just ain't workin' our right.

  • ||

    "I'm sure I went off track there somewhere, but some part of that equation just ain't workin' our right."

    Maybe all dead fetuses go to heaven, because they've never sinned--so they're good enough to get into heaven...

    ...just not good enough to be buried in consecrated ground?

  • ||

    Crimethink, the only thing your comments prove is that you haven't taken a few minutes to actually find out what the side you disagree with says. I can understand someone who holds a position because he has heard the opposing position and finds it lacking, but you haven't bothered to do that. So why should someone respond with an argument?

  • ||

    "Crimethink, the only thing your comments prove is that you haven't taken a few minutes to actually find out what the side you disagree with says."

    I think it's just been hashed out around here so many times over the years, it's kinda done already, isn't it?

    I just brought it up as an example of something socially repugnant--something considered extremely distasteful but should be perfectly legal.

    I guess that's the way I see abortion, and I think a lot of other people do too. They see it as something that's probably ethically wrong, but should be perfectly legal. I don't know anybody* that brags about having had an abortion--and I think a lot of people would react to hearing that "so and so converted to Islam" the same way.

    I'm sure there are plenty of people whose reaction to finding out that you converted to Islam these days--after 9/11--is about the same reaction they'd have to finding out that you had your second abortion last week...

    "How could you?!"

    Regardless of what anybody thinks of the procedure, I think it makes for a pretty good analogy for how more and more people are reacting to Islam generally--because of actions like this bombing in Sweden.

    And if I could get one idea across to the terrorists, it would be that actions like this make the Western world much less safe for Muslims and much less conducive to the West's acceptance of Islam.

    If they stayed up late every night trying to think up new and better ways to associate Islam with the same kind of socially repugnant "ick" factor people associate with serial aborters--it's hard to imagine them coming up with anything better than bombing innocent people shopping for Christmas gifts in the name of Islam.

    It speaks to the heart of the War on Terror--from Ground Zero on down... How come the terrorists misjudge us so badly?

    Surely, Sheik Omar wouldn't have understood how we were going to react to 9/11; otherwise, he wouldn't have supported OBL and lost control of his country. There must have been a moment when he said to OBL, "Got any more bright ideas, Jackass?!" And here's this bomber in Sweden almost ten years later--and they still haven't caught on!

    He still thinks targeting innocent people will win respect for Islam in the West! ...when there's nothing they could have done that loses more respect for Islam amongst average people in the West than purposely targeting innocent people! Did I say they were thought of as being like serial aborters?

    Naw, it's worse than that!

    *Okay, one person.

  • ||

    Ken, that was a response to crimethink, not you. See the first word of the post.

  • ||

    Ken, that was a response to crimethink, not you. See the first word of the post.

  • Adam||

    Perhaps the idiot footsoldiers think they're "winning respect", but I assure you, the ones in charge don't give a shit about respect.

    They know they're winning, because they can spend $4200 and it shuts down air freight all over the world for a week.

    They know they're winning, because they can have some idiot cram some PETN down his underwear and light it on fire, and now everyone's got to get molested by government agents before they can fly on a plane.

    As long as we keep overreacting to their provocations, they will keep winning.

    From AQAP's newsletter:
    ‎"Tell them that the life of the American citizen is in danger and that his life is more significant than billions of dollars," he wrote. "Hand in hand, we will be with you until you are bankrupt and your economy collapses."

  • Mr. FIFY||

    When was the last abortion-clinic boming? Jesus, if you ask a liberal, they happen every day.

  • Oh, great...||

    ...we're back to the "fetuses aren't humans until they come out of the womb on their own" BS.

  • sevo||

    Tulpa|12.11.10 @ 8:39PM|#
    "My point was that pornographers are despised for making pornography,.."
    And I'm sure you'll cite the suicide bomber who killed himself and several others at the porn studio, right?

  • sevo||

    "other people who happen to have the same religion"
    So religions "happen"?

  • JoshINHB||

    It was outrageous the way the US murdered tens of thousands of germans in WWII that happened to have the same ideas as the fuhrer.

  • ||

    If you're referring to the indiscriminate bombing of German cities of dubious military significance in WW2, yes, I agree it was outrageous.

    If you're talking about German soldiers being killed, I think we were killing them because they were shooting at us, not because of their beliefs.

  • BWM||

    Well, uh, we started killing them first. We had beef with Japan; they just decided to wrap up Europe first to bail out Britian.

  • ||

    Er, Germany declared war on us immediately after we declared war on Japan. Our declaration of war on Germany was in response to theirs on us.

  • Cytotoxic||

    If those indiscriminate bombings were necessary to save American/allied lives (ie The Good Guys), then it was the moral right. We slaughtered them and you know what? They don't hate us for it, nor should they. So much for civilian casualties leading to long-term enmity.

  • BWM||

    How was it a moral right to kill people we had no fight with? And part of the reason Germany might not hate us now could be because of the massive amount of money we paid them after the war.

  • ||

    "How was it a moral right to kill people we had no fight with?"

    ahem.

    You mean those citizens, who at a bare minimum, chose cognitive dissonance over the actions of their military/government?

  • ||

    Ah, the Randian attitude that those with wrong ideas deserve death. Nice to see it still holds sway around here.

  • ||

    When someone attacks you, you try to incapacitate him as quickly as possible. You do not worry that your blows may land on some part of his body he didn't attack you with, you do not worry that you might permanently damage or even kill him--you simply get him into a position when he is no longer able to attack.

    Afterwards, you can worry about damage.

    War is meant to be fought the same way. It should concern itself only with seeing to it that the enemy cannot attack again. That the enemy is incapacitated, and, if possible begging for mercy/terms. Begging.

    It should not be attempting humanitarian aid to enemy civilians during the conflict. It should not be counting or caring about enemy civilian casualties until after the enemy has been utterly defeated.

    Then, and only then, should the general damage that is part of war be addressed.

    We do not fight this way anymore. To the world's detriment.

  • ||

    Yes, Tulpa.
    If that wrong idea turns into actions, which happen to involve murderering as many U.S. civilians as possible, those ideas do deserve death.

  • ||

    It's really hard to keep arguing for toleration of Muslims and their rights

    Really? How is it hard? Do you find it similarly difficult to argue for drug legalization in the face of all the violence drug dealers perpetrate?

  • Didn't Learn From Prohibition||

    Yeah! Yeah!

    Them drug dealers is all just like Budweiser and Jack Daniels!

  • cynical||

    DLFP, are you saying that Muslim terrorism isn't a side effect of the actions and policies of Western nation-states? That sounds a little like drug dealers and prohibition to me.

  • sevo||

    "DLFP, are you saying that Muslim terrorism isn't a side effect of the actions and policies of Western nation-states? That sounds a little like drug dealers and prohibition to me."
    So drug dealers are 'freedom fighters'? I thought they were trying to make a buck. Or did I miss the sarcasm?

  • ||

    if what muslims are doing today is areaction to western nation-states why have they been doing it for fourteen hundred years. what have they done it in india, africa and the far east.

  • BWM||

    They haven't been. I don't know of any cases of suicide bombing in 16th century India. There's a difference between "warring between regions" which everyone everywhere is guilty of, and "craven cowards targeting civilians" which is relatively new as a battle plan.

  • ||

    Yeah, so..what do you tell all those grieving families in Mumbai?

  • sevo||

    "Do you find it similarly difficult to argue for drug legalization in the face of all the violence drug dealers perpetrate?"
    I didn't know that drug dealing was a belief. I thought it was a semi-rational career choice.

  • ||

    Ah. so it's ok to despise people for abstract beliefs, but not for actual activities they partake in.

  • pmains||

    If the Guzman cartel were to disband, the market would quickly fill the void created. So, I don't blame any individual for the drug war. It's the result of impersonal market forces.

    On the other hand, if Al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood stopped with the terrorist attacks, the world would be more peaceful.

    I'd ask if you understand now, but you seem to take great pride in being obtuse.

  • ||

    "A l'eau, c'est l'heur" all over again:

    The embassy said one passenger, who was a friend of pro-Chavez lawmaker Carlos Echezuria Rodriguez, thought the crew member said "loco Chavez time."

    American Airlines local manager Omar Nottaro reported to the embassy that the crew member announced to passengers: "Welcome to Venezuela. Local Chavez time is ..."

    The memo, which was written a day after the incident, said the airline manager's account was contradicted by that of Venezuelan immigration authorities, who wrote in their report that the crew member had announced "the hour of the crazy Chavez and his women."

    The crew then was held in the airport while officials discussed what would be done, the embassy said.
  • ||

  • Sarah Palin||

    They make War on Christmas just like atheistic progressives with their "Happy Holidays" only with bombs and stuff instead.

  • affenkopf||

    The EDL Forum? What's next? Posting a link to stormfront to prove Jewish influence on US politics?

  • Chony to the Max||

    It is not fair to call Muslim suicide bombers "fanatics." They are fighting against the hegemonic oppression of the west, as well as uncalled for insults against their religion, and derive this strength from their religion. In this case, no one was even killed. Compare this to the millions killed by Bush.

    On the other, the US is filled with religious fanatics who wish to force their Christian way of life on both Americans and the world. I don't hear Reasonoids complaining about that.

  • Hey,||

    Go fuck yesself

  • ||

    Please, nobody flame this guy. I want him coming back, just for the look of shocked disbelief/amusement on my face. Well you'll have to take my word for that.

  • cynical||

    You know he's just spoofing retarded DU talking points for shits and giggles, right?

  • Chony to the Max||

    DU?

  • ||

    Democratic Underground

  • Bucky||

    Bush, Bush, Bush...
    Yawn

  • ||

    spoofing loses its appeal when newer posters don't understand the references.

  • Chad||

    Where have I been lately?

  • ||

    Balls deep in Tony?

  • Krazy Kartoon Mohamet||

    Yes it is fair to call them fanatics, without the asshat quote marks.

  • ||

    "hegemonic oppression"? Which POS tract did you lift that multi-national jibber-jabber BS phrase from?

    (On the other hand I've NOT seen instances of Christians (pick any one out) blowing up bars full of drinkers, nor bombing attempts on titty bars loaded with "fun loving" males hooting at a pole dancer. Get a grip, moron.)

  • ||

    "hegemonic oppression"? Which POS tract did you lift that multi-national jibber-jabber BS phrase from?

    (On the other hand I've NOT seen instances of Christians (pick any one out) blowing up bars full of drinkers, nor bombing attempts on titty bars loaded with "fun loving" males hooting at a pole dancer. Get a grip, moron.)

  • ||

    He's spoofing, no need to take his comments seriously.

  • Chony to the Max||

    Soon you won't have a choice BUT to take my comments seriously.

  • Bucky||

    (greatly exaggerated German accent)
    ...and you will like it!

  • Chony to the Max||

    NO NO NO! The point is that the masses SHOULDN'T enjoy it. Otherwise, where's the power?

  • Bucky||

    silly man! you see it was a reference to Nazis that are... oh never mind!

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Open the borders!

  • Typical smug European||

    Ha ha, these attacks against America are all the faults of Americans and they deserve it. Oh, wait...

  • Sarah Palin||

    As is typical with semi-literate religious fanatics, the attack, it would seem, was a massive failure.

    "Death Panels" was NOT a massive failure!

  • Come on now||

    Other than his being slightly more quick-witted, you cannot honestly believe that Obama is much smarter than Palin.

  • Come on now is||

    raaaaaacist for disparaging Obama!

  • Almanian||

    ...and seeeeexist for further disparaging Palin

  • Liberal Douchebag||

    It's only sexist if it's aimed at liberal women. Otherwise, it's okay.

  • ziggy||

    We might not be at war with islam but ideologically(and not so ideologically for some) they are with us.
    Anyone who doesn't see it is naive.
    I lived in Sweden for 3 years and from my own unscientific experience and evidence, muslims ther, hate swedish culture and especially swedish whores(known as hot girls to the western world). I was quite surprised at the hate directed towards the country that brought them in as "refugees" and in many cases provided them with funds until they found work(which in some cases, the state also provided).
    Until we dont stop the pc nonsense when dealing with islam, we will lose that "ideological"war.
    Like all religions, islam is another fairy tale, except its one where more of its followers are willing to kill for and die doing it...

  • ||

    To which PC nonsense are you referring? Allowing them to build a worship site on property they own, perhaps?

  • ||

    I think the PC nonsense is the assumption that Islam has nothing to do with these terrorist acts, that, say, Buddhism is just as likely to spawn jihadists. Or whatever the violent, anti-semitic, anti-homosexual, anti-woman, anti-artist path to nirvana is called.

  • ||

    We let the warhawks assume that US foreign policy towards the Arab world has nothing to do with terrorism, so why not give equal opportunity fantasy to the other side?

  • sevo||

    Tulpa|12.11.10 @ 8:41PM|#
    "We let the warhawks assume that US foreign policy towards the Arab world has nothing to do with terrorism,..."
    Introducing the man of straw.....

  • BWM||

    Actually, pre-Chinese occupied Tibet had a pretty brutal history.

  • Bucky||

    see what your "Made In China" has brought you! for-shame!

  • ||

    Heads, I lose.

  • RON PAUL||

    Well, you see, the Muslims only hate on Sweden because of the Swedish Empire and the Foreign Adventures (TM) that they are on in the ME. If Sweden would just opt for free trade and bring the troops home, all the hating would cease.

  • cynical||

    Bullshit. They hate Sweden because of Wikileaks.

  • Almanian||

    No, no, it's the Swedish Models™

  • ||

    I'm curious as to why Moynihan assumes this turd was semi-literate. There is a grammatical error in the suicide note, but I'd be extremely surprised if it was written in English originally, so that's probably a translation error.

  • Hugh Akston||

    He obviously didn't read the bomber manual closely.

  • ||

    You know he does speak Swedish ...

  • ||

    In which case it's translated, and the grammatical error is probably a fault in Moynihan's translation.

  • ||

    Of course, and you know that Moynihan probably made the error while translating how exactly?

  • BeltwayLurker||

    What about Austrian?

  • VikingMoose||

    according to SVT, the suspect did graduate high school and attended Bedfordshire Univ. and completed a degree in physiotherapy

    hier

  • djofraleigh||

    Sweden is alive with middle east immigrants who are not fitting in so well. The Islamic website from Sweden bear scrutiny.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    Obviously that's the fault of those damn nativist Swedes.

  • ||

    It's indisputable that Islam motivates many people to do evil deeds and many other adherents of that creed to tolerate and justify the terrorists. No other religion is motivating evil on such a scale - only Islam. To say that there are peace-loving Muslims is about as inconsequential as to say that there were peace-loving members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

  • ||

    No other religion is motivating evil on such a scale - only Islam.

    The Crusades?
    Enslavement of black Africans?
    Near annihilation of Native Americans?
    The Inquisition?

    Compared to Christianity, Islam is downright amateurish at inspiring violence, it seems.

  • ||

    The Crusades were over 800 years ago and had a defensive motive.
    Enslavement of black Africans was widely practiced in the Arab world and existed legally in Arabia until the 1960s. That's the 20th century, Tulpa.
    Near annihilation of Native Americans was something in the US, not in Canada or Latin America, which have Christian heritages. And a lot of the disappearance of Native Americans in the US was the result of intermarriage.
    The Inquisition has been exaggerated and in decades did not claim the same number of victims that, say, the Beslan massacre did.
    Islam really has no peers in inspiring violence.

  • BWM||

    Did you just say that the annihilation of Native Americans did not occur in Latin America? Seriously? Cortez doesn't ring a bell? Your selective, anti-Muslim idea of history pretty much eliminates any credibility you might have. And the Crusades were not "defensive", although they were about as justified as the actions of the Turks. Islam has committed far more crimes because it's easier to do that now, but Christian Europe spent over a millenia attempting to conquer and forcefully convert absolutely every group of people they encountered.

  • ||

    Plenty of Native Americans live throughout Latin America and Canada today. That is more than can be said for Native Christian communities in North Africa and some other places.

  • ||

    The Arab invaders didn't kill the North African Christians, or Christians pretty much anywhere else; they needed a tax base (Muslims are not allowed to tax Muslims). Over the course of over 1000 years most of the descendants of Christians wound up converting to Islam -- sort of like the descendants of pagans converted to Christianity in Europe when it became convenient/expected.

  • pmains||

    There are entire cities that ceased to exist after the Muslim invasion of North Africa.

    Again, your argument exposes the sociopathic nature of Islam. One thing that really infuriates me about people who engage in physical or emotional abuse is how they will occasionally announce that they don't always act abusively. They then look around as though they expect someone to bring them a cookie. I refuse to admire the restraint of Muslim barbarians who didn't get around to murdering all of the Christian peoples they encountered.

  • BWM||

    True, although that is directly in violation of Islam. And let's not forget that, for example, the second largest Jewish population on earth is in Iran; obviously, there is not as much indiscriminate murder as some people think.

  • CavMedic||

    "...the second largest Jewish population on earth is in Iran..."

    What the hell are you talking about? Iran has less than 11,000 Jews or less than 5/100ths of one percent of the Iranian population.

    Sourse: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar.....ewpop.html

  • ||

    What the fuck? Are you fucking insane BWM?

  • BWM||

    Alright, fine. I assumed an AP article I read on the subject wouldn't be so wrong, my bad. Calm down.

  • ||

    +1 for being a good sport.

  • sevo||

    "Christian Europe spent over a millenia attempting to conquer and forcefully convert absolutely every group of people they encountered."
    Yes it did, and did it well, and it's certainly not something to be proud of. Islam also did so, at least in North Africa and Southern and South-East Europe until they were fought back.
    But it (we) stopped doing that some time back and to some degree have attempted to atone for it.
    Islam is still at it, with no apologies for the earlier efforts.

  • BWM||

    I agree, but that's shifting the point from "Islam is alone in promoting evil" to "Islam is currently the leader in promoting evil". I'm not arguing that.

  • sevo||

    "The Crusades?
    Enslavement of black Africans?
    Near annihilation of Native Americans?
    The Inquisition?"
    Yep, Islam missed #3, 'cause they weren't here. But you sorta missed that Islam still enslaved black Africans when they could get away wit it until, oh, 50 years ago.
    And Islam's "Inquisition" is an on-going project.

  • ||

    Islamic slavery was not nearly on the scale of the European slave trade, but you are correct, their hands aren't blood-free throughout history either. I'm not trying to say they are.

  • sevo||

    Tulpa|12.11.10 @ 9:22PM|#
    "Islamic slavery was not nearly on the scale of the European slave trade,..."
    Yeah, only because their technology didn't let them and their economy didn't require it. So Africans should be happy Islam is a bronze-age culture?
    How many slaves do you need to make coffee?

  • ||

    Bronze Age culture? Please educate yourself. From 720 AD to the 13th century, the Arab-Muslim culture was the most scientifically advanced in the world. Arabic was the language of science. Even after the 13th century, the West was simply building on translated Arabic texts. Muslims preserved and greatly extended the sciences throughout the Dark Ages.

  • V||

    They did, but it was when they thought the best way to understand Allah was through his creation (via science), not through the dogma of the Qur'an and Hadith. But eventually they relapsed into madness and dogma.

  • Wind Rider||

    Might as well leave it here -

    Ya know, the whole "this bunch of assholes did bad things a long time ago, so you can't say anything disparaging about this other bunch of assholes doing bad stuff" line of reasoning is a crock of shit.

    And it's completely irrelevant who did or didn't say what about whatever, as well.

    Try and keep the temporal reference frame somewhere after the invention of indoor plumbing, at least. M'kay? Thanks.

  • ||

    We call this the "tu toque fallacy". It's rampant around here sometimes.

  • anarch, Latin American||

    Tu toque

    That means Thou brimless hat! which even around here will get you banned, so watch it.

  • pmains||

    This is simply false. As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the number of European slaves taken by the Arab world was larger than the number of African slaves taken by the Europeans. That is, Arab slavery was on a greater scale than the European slave trade, even when you completely discount the African slave trade engaged in by Arabs.

  • ||

    And the fact that the original sellers in the African slave markets were other Africans never seems to come.

    I guess its just easier to ignore history and blame whitey to keep the Arab's from looking just as shitty.

  • ||

    Does Mr Sowell have evidence for this? That would be an extremely tricky thing to ascertain given the respective time periods.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Those pesky 'facts' aren't Tulpa's strong point.

  • Nathan B.||

    Some of the comments dealing in four letter words are pretty sad as appendages to a blog post put out by "Reason.com"--but whatever.

    I can't help adding my own reply to this.

    The Crusades: I would say they were offensive rather than defensive; however, the Crusades were basically an answer to Jihad. Islam spread at the point of the sword westwards from the Arabian peninsula to the ground of France, where it was only stopped by Charles Martel.

    Enslavement of black Africans wasn't invented by Christianity; in many cases, it was irreligious men who profited off of the slave trade, and in any case it was Christians like William Wilberforce who put an end to slavery in the British Empire.

    Near annihilation of First Nations did happen in Canada, as with, for example, the Haida, who went from a population of thousands to only some hundreds. This was the result of disease, but when the white folks of Victoria discovered aboriginals in "their" city infected with smallpox, they sent them back to their homes in Haida Gwaii--and they would have known that devastation would result.

    I don't think it's in anyone's best interests to minimize the Inquisition, but as another poster has noted, Islam's is still ongoing.

    A better example than most of the above would have been the Thirty Years War.

    All that said, Christianity today does not cause the same level of death, violence against women, and poverty that Islam does. Furthermore, Christianity's core text, the New Testament, is if anything rather pacifistic; the genocidal portions of the Bible are in the Hebrew Bible. The destruction of the First Temple put an end to that tendency in Judaism, but Islam, which has a similar attachment to the land around Mecca, has never suffered the loss of sacred land, and so has never had to reinterpret itself in a more pacifistic direction. Furthermore, unlike Christianity, which allowed a separation of church and state eventually, Islam has gone largely in the other direction, and today, even Islamic democracies like Pakistan have the death penalty for apostates. All in all, the world would be a much better place without this religion.

  • ||

    The Crusades: I would say they were offensive rather than defensive; however, the Crusades were basically an answer to Jihad.

    If the Crusades (and all the accompanying atrocities against civilians, be they Muslim, Jewish, or even Orthodox Christians) were justified by Muslim conquests, then aren't acts of violence by Muslims against the West justified as a response to Western incursions in the Middle East? Talking about the several overthrows of democratic governments and the handing-over of Palestinian land to European Jews that have been perpetrated by the US and its Western allies here.

    In reality, I don't think either was justified, but you seem to think the Crusades were, so that puts you in a bit of an uncomfortable position.

  • BWM||

    To which I would add that the Battle of Tours was some 300 years before the Crusades, while many of the crimes against modern Muslim nations have occurred within the life of people still on this earth.

  • Nathan B.||

    Not at all; I'm quite comfortable, actually. I'm not justifying any kind of religious violence, but I am suggesting that your rather surprising claim that Islamic violence doesn't hold a candle to Christian violence is incorrect.

  • Cytotoxic||

    handing-over of Palestinian land to European Jews

    Yeah, those damn Jews should've just learned to love living as second-class citizens in a hostile backwards society, subject to the occasional massacre. Anything else is a crime against Islam!

  • Adam||

    "Yeah, those damn Jews should've just learned to love living as second-class citizens in a hostile backwards society, subject to the occasional massacre."

    And that wouldn't have anything to do with Christians, right?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Not in the ME no not really.

  • BWM||

    They should, preferably, of not moved into a bear's den like that. But I do agree Israel has really gotten the short end of the stick, even if it's founding was questionable. They clearly are operating mostly in self-defense, since the first terrorist attack on Israel was 10 weeks before the country was officially founded, in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem.

  • ||

    Are you referring to Muslim terrorists or the Jewish ones who also operated at that time?

  • ||

    All that said, Christianity today does not cause the same level of death, violence against women, and poverty that Islam does.

    Probably because Christianity has died a death by a thousand cuts in the West. It's largely been forced to parrot whatever values the secular society develops for the last 200 years; look at the timeline for abrupt changes in teachings on abortion and contraception in most Christian churches, compared to various court decisions and legislative enactments. The few churches that don't accept these secular amendments to faith and morals -- for instance, the Catholic Church -- are basically ignored, even by their own nominal adherents.

    You can't really blame/credit Christianity for the West's current behavior because people mouth Christian platitudes once in a while, any more than you can blame/credit Greek pagan religion for what the West is doing because people talk about Zeus and Venus every once in a while.

  • BWM||

    I'm not arguing with you, but I'm going to point out that it's almost like you lament the fact that Christianity no longer kills alot of people.

  • ||

    I don't know why that would be. I'm not a Christian myself, so I don't really lament Christianity's loss of influence. I just get irked when Christianity is held up as a superior religion because they stopped killing people for religious reasons after the religion started declining.

    It's the same phenomenon with that other vaunted religion of peace, Judaism. Jews were in the minority everywhere they lived for 1900 years, and so Judaism gained a reputation as a peaceful, tolerant religion in many quarters, despite the fact that Jewish history before the expulsion from Judaea was hardly peaceful or tolerant. Of course, as soon as a Jewish state came into being again, it started oppressing its neighbors, putting the lie to that poppycock.

  • BWM||

    Alright. I agree, mostly. I DO think there is something to the fact that the basis of Christianity is more peaceful than the basis of Islam, but I also think those facts are usually irrelevant; no one cares about the basis of things, they care about contemporary application.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Israel defending itself = oppressing neighbors. Newspeak lesson complete for today.

  • Nathan B.||

    "You can't really blame/credit Christianity for the West's current behavior because people mouth Christian platitudes once in a while, any more than you can blame/credit Greek pagan religion for what the West is doing because people talk about Zeus and Venus every once in a while."

    I disagree. Christianity doesn't have violence intrinsic to it. Jesus Christ did not call for violence against others (although he did exhibit racist attitudes on occasion); similarly, Paul says nothing about forcing others to submit to faith at the point of the sword. It's precisely because Christianity lacks at its core that this-worldly imperialist impulse that motivates Islam that the religious have developed differently. Islam couldn't die by a thousand cuts from within because those attempting to question their articles of faith end up having their heads cut off.

  • Nathan B.||

    Sorry the typo should be: "...that the religions have developed differently."

  • BWM||

    No ideology is immune to question from within or without. If that was the case, then Christianity wouldn't exist; most older faiths didn't allow questions either. And again, what the bible says is irrelevant; barbarian Christian Europe acted no different from the muslims for 1000 years, largely using their faith as an excuse.

  • Nathan B.||

    I'm not sure I understand your points, but it seems to me that you are making very broad, blanket statements, statements so broad that they are going to be unhelpful. If you could make your points more precisely, I would be happy to try to answer them.

  • Nathan B.||

    Well, I'll give it a try anyways.

    Essentially, it does matter what biblical texts say, because the Bible--especially the New Testament, was central to Christianity's development for its first critical centuries, and have continued to be preached from pulpits for nearly two thousand years. I agree that Catholic Christianity acted badly, often using faith as an excuse to justify horrific behavior. The Protestant Reformation occurred because people realized that their religion had developed in ways that were antithetical to their core religious texts. As a former Protestant and former Catholic (now of no faith), I basically see the Reformation as an important precursor to the Enlightenment.

    I'm not trying to whitewash Christianity, which has to answer for a lot of suffering, both in blood and in tears, but the claim that Islam today is somehow less violent than Christianity used to be is ludicrous.

    The bit about "older faiths not allowing questions" is a bit odd, but most religions have always been quite pluralistic. Thus, you have localized deities, all more or less coexisting in the various pantheons. Islam has been intellectually stagnant, but this is because of the characteristics that make it unique, not in spite of them.

  • BWM||

    No, it doesn't matter what the NT says; for the first 3 centuries, there were FAR more books than are in the NT. There were Christian sects that were practically entirely different faiths. The Catholics, once the romans converted, were the ones to create a testament based off of what books they just happened to like, and then they immediately proceeded to do whatever they felt like. So between the final decision of canon and the Reformation, no one really cared what the bible said, using it selectively for their own purpose. Especially since commoners were illiterate, they only knew what they were told, not what was written. And my point was, many older faiths didn't allow for questions either; hence the repression of Christianity. I was saying that if it was possible to make an ideology air-tight, so that no amount of small internal squabbles could ultimately disrupt it, Christianity would have died in it's infancy.

    Now I agree Islam is violent. But it's basically as violent as Christianity once was, because the faith is being used as an excuse, not a cause. When Christian Europe wanted death and war, they had it, and when they wanted peace and growth, they had it, and they invoked Christianity coming and going. It's the same for the Muslims; they reference whatever part of their faith they want to justify their personal feelings. Islam was extremely progressive for 700 years; now it's not. Obviously, the same cause (the Quran) can't cause both situations.

  • Nathan B.||

    Well, on the details, we might disagree. I find that the lure of books like those by Dan Brown has obscured rather than illuminated the development of the Christian canon, though (though I'm not saying that this has happened to you). You're right when you point to a larger number of books once regarded as authoritative or of supreme importance, but wrong when you still say that what is in the NT does not matter. The NT does matter; without it, Christianity would not have developed as it has. It's actually quite counter-intuitive to suggest that the sacred books of any religion "don't matter," I think.

    As for the canon, it's certainly a question of "whose" canon we are talking about. The Catholic canon is larger than the Protestant one on account of the Apocrypha. The Eastern Orthodox have an even larger canon on account of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Some of the other smaller eastern churches accept even more books than the so-called Orthodox churches. Finally, the New Testament Pseudepigrapha were accepted by "heretics" like Marcion, and frankly, it would have been better for subsequent history if some of them had been included.

    I think we both agree that Islam and Christianity have had much violence associated with them, and we would both agree that faith has been used as an excuse for horrific acts of violence toward humanity. We would probably also agree that Islam is not irredeemable.

    I would differ from you, though, in seeing, for example, the Crusades as antithetical to the spirit of the founders of Christianity (Jesus and Paul), and in seeing Jihad and terrorism as being directly caused by the words and teachings of Mohammed.

  • Nathan B.||

    Sorry--I improperly nested the preceding comment, which refers to BWM's comment.

  • Nathan B.||

    I should also mention that while there were many "Christian" books in circulation during the few centuries after Jesus' death, most of the ones that didn't make it into any of the major churches' canons weren't considered especially authoritative by most self-professed Christians.

    Also, the question of the canon was not something decided once and for all at Nicea, as so many think. It was something that evolved slowly over time, though not without controversy. For example, Jerome's list of canonical works was not identical with Augustine's list. Eventually, each church came eventually the canonical lists they hold to now.

  • BWM||

    Yes, but there didn't even exist canonical lists until at least Marcion. We have well over 100 years of literature before absolutely anyone sat down to make a list. Many of the early church fathers still highly regarded today referenced (and endorsed) works that are not considered canon. Ultimately, when they finally started to really settle on canon some 300 years later, they chose books that conformed to their beliefs, not the other way around. That's why I say the NT doesn't matter, in part; it consists of cherry-picked books that supported the existing prejudices of the church, instead of the other way around. Furthermore, I still think it's irrelevant, because they didn't strictly follow the books at all; they chose the parts they wanted and ignored others. I think the NT is relevant in providing some kind of basis, but I honestly feel the details are not important, as half of them are ignored or taken out of context, etc. So frankly, I don't really see a difference between Muslim violence and christian violence in history; most of the time, the motivation was secular (land, power, retribution), with coating of relgious zeal to obscure that fact. I don't think it's even any different than communist or fascist or nationalist or racial violence. I think is Islam didn't have so violent a holy book, they'd still find a way to use it as a justification, or just find a whole different excuse. And I've never read Dan Brown, just to clear the air there.

  • Nathan B.||

    I'd have to disagree about the development of the canon. It is very well-known that the early epistles authored by Paul, and canonical gospels, especially Mark and Luke, were continuously cherished in their communities. These works did affect the Christian community in very important ways. A lot of the New Testament Pseudepigrapha, and texts such as the Gnostic gospels, are clearly later, deriving from other traditions that did not go back to Jesus. We might wish that most of the material in The Gospel of Thomas and other books were authentic, but the fact is it isn't. One of the reasons why some texts made it into the NT and others didn't was not a kind of judicial fiat that sought merely to confirm the prejudices of certain religious clerics--it was whether they could fit into a living tradition that had already taken shape soon after the death of Jesus.

  • Robert||

    A profusion of slaves came from Africa because they were the only things Africans had that were worthwhile in trade.

  • ||

    "Some of the comments dealing in four letter words are pretty sad as appendages to a blog post put out by "Reason.com"

    Drink!

  • ||

    The Crusades?
    Enslavement of black Africans?
    Near annihilation of Native Americans?
    The Inquisition?

    Compared to Christianity, Islam is downright amateurish at inspiring violence, it seems.

    Tulpa,
    Moral equivalency may win you B-pluses at your high school campus, but it looks ridiculous here.

  • ||

    When responding to a person who claims that Islam is the only religion that people have committed violence in the name of, it's worth at least an A- I would think.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    Now you are working for an A+ in an undergrad LA class through a false representation of your opponents statements. Bravo!

  • ||

    the crusades were a reaction to the muslim conquering and butchering of christian lands and people. the african slave trade was started by muslims not christians. if you want to believe the "Roots" bullshit that fifteen white guys in a boat sailed to africa and captured thousands of africans and put them in chains, well there was a little girl in kansas that got picked in a cyclone and landed in oz too. they bought them from their muslim slave owners.

  • BWM||

    Umm, they also bought them from other pagans. Islam was not strong on much of the African coast. And I have to call you out on the Crusades; the furthest the Muslims got was France in the 8th century. They were repelled from there, and gradually pushed out of Spain for decades. By the time the middle eastern crusades were launched, Europe had reclaimed much of Spain (which was, actually, fairly peaceful) and most military actions by Muslims were against the Byzantines. The impetus that launched the first crusade was the Seljuk turks' taking of Jerusalem and the vastly exaggerated tales of what happened there. It's not surprising that christian Europe was upset to lose the right to travel to Jerusalem (although it was under Muslim rule long before then), but it certainly is a poor reason to launch a 200 year long war. Actually, it helped the muslim world by providing an enemy to unite against, preventing infighting (which was really the only reason the crusaders weren't repelled in a matter of years).

  • ||

    And I have to call you out on the Crusades; the furthest the Muslims got was France in the 8th century. They were repelled from there, and gradually pushed out of Spain for decades.

    So then these would have been reactive fighting, no? In response to invasion?

    By the time the middle eastern crusades were launched, Europe had reclaimed much of Spain

    Much, but not all? So this would be part of the continuing push to get the conquering Muslims out?

    And getting the conquering Muslims out of Christianity's holiest city--AFTER having had to fight them out of Europe seems like offensive tactics to you?

    Strange,

  • ziggy||

    We are talking about the 20th century right? Oh and enslavement of women and children in Africa is being done by muslims as well.. so...

    Bringig up the crusades and inquisition is a pathetic argument really. How long will you hold on to something that happened centuries ago? We are talking about the present time, i believe no other other religion has so many acts of violence commited in its name as Islam.
    Will you bring up Mcveigh (not motivated by religion btw) and the one or two killers of abortion doctors as an example of christian terrorist?
    Especially when we look at the muslim terrorist acts throughout the world, coming from different races and nations?

  • BWM||

    True; it'd be better to compare them to political movements like Naziism and communism.

  • Tulpa||

    Yeah well you're an imperialist neo-con so I win.

  • ||

    This is (obviously) not me, but a cowardly spoofer.

  • Bucky||

    enslavement of black Africans...
    whoops. try Arabs. still in business today.

  • ||

    The Crusades started in answer to Islamic agression.

    Slavery was not begun as something Christianity had to do according to their scriptures--despite the fact that Christianity was used as a justification for and against slavery.

    Native Americans were not slain because they refused to become Christian--they were slain because they refused to leave land they could not protect.

    The Inquisition(the only actual Christian atrocity you cite) was not scripturally sanctioned and it's ferocity owes much to Islams' long occupation of European territory and the resulting cultural distortion.

    Christians have commited violence, there is no doubt of that--but very little of that violence was scripturally compelled.

    Can the same be said of Islam?

    One faith is based on the death of a scapegoat--the other on the deeds of a warrior. It is only logical that their structures and demands would be radically different.

  • ||

    Even the Swedes, timid as they appear when referenced to the US, are targets of murder for daring to express support for an artist. At some point - in the distant future, I guess - we're going to have to take this war seriously (meaning actually identifying the enemy for starters), or we're finished (meaning we roll over to whatever liberty-extrication our masters dream up next).

  • BWM||

    Did you miss the part of the note referencing military action on the part of Sweden? I may be wrong, but even the most wild-eyed zealot is likely to be more upset to hear that a country has troops helping to conquer the lands of his people than to see an offensive cartoon.

  • sevo||

    No, you read Tulpa trying to stretch reality to beyond the elastic limit.

  • BWM||

    I don't follow.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    How many Christians are willing to commit violence or kill, over a cartoon of Jesus?

  • Almanian||

    What're you paying?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Three-fiddy, Almanian. Cash moneys!

  • ||

    God dammit womon! don't go offerin' no tree fitty to every chrischen nutjob dressed like a girlscout now!

  • BWM||

    Ironically, it'd probably be a higher number if the Catholic Church hadn't decided 1700 years ago that the 2nd Commandment doesn't mean what it clearly says.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Seriously, BWM? You really believe that, if not for your scenario, modern-day Christians would kill over a FUCKING DRAWING of Jesus?

  • BWM||

    It was more of a joke, because I tire of hearing about Christians are so much better based on the fact that their holy text is more peace-loving. I was pointing out that Christians don't even follow their book, and that if they HAD, history would be far different; Christian history would be less warlike and more totalitarian. So I guess it was more of a smart-ass comment to myself that I should have expanded on. But I DO think that, yes, we'd have cases of that if, in the 2000 years history of Christianity, pictures of anything, particularly Jesus, were considered idolatry and a major sin. Since the Muslims are proof that such an idea can be held by the faithful, I don't see how it's crazy.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Well, we're talking about the here-and-now, BWM, not some hypothetical construct.

    Maybe, though, you're on to something: If modern Muslims followed their book as loosely as most Christians follow theirs, we'd have less violence today.

  • BWM||

    I wasn't talking about the here and now, but I should have specified. But I do agree; violent Muslims tend to look at the Quran as literally as possible to justify their actions, while the peaceful ones to overlook the specifics and preach the parts that suit them. Although it's sometimes hard to say they are cherry-picking, due to the wierd-ass way the book is written, it's still pretty clear that there is as much of a selective reading there as is there is among Christians in the west who will gladly seek out passages condemning homosexuality in the bible, but overlook Paul's claim that we should all stop having sex so we can be clean for the end of the world.

  • ||

    Mr FIFY,

    Christians who follow their book loosely are not Christians. And if Christians had kept following their book, Europe wouldn't have had the problems with Naziism and Communism that it did.

    BWM,

    Paul never said that; in fact, he explicitly said the opposite.

  • BWM||

    You are right, I conflated two different references; Paul merely admits that marriage is preferable to unmarried sex in 1 Corinthians, although he explicitely says chastity is better. It's Jesus himself, according to the Book of Luke, that said people who marry will not enter the kingdom of heaven. So if Europe had followed the book, there'd be no Europe. And, actually, following the bible strictly is not canon according to Catholicism, the largest sect and the dominant one for most history. Which makes sense, since it was the Catholics who looked at hundreds of gospels, epistles, revelations, etc, and chose the ones that make the bible we have now (until the protestants changed it).

  • ||

    There's a great link I saw at zombie's site--It's a site that has representations of Mohammed--many done by non-heretical Muslims in the past. Apparently, at some point, Muslims, like Christians, understood that looking at a picture is not the same a worshipping a graven image.

    Perhaps this will help you understand that the second commandment doesn't refer to painting and looking at pictures.

  • ||

    I did not miss that point. 1/2 of his statement is regarding the idea that you can't draw anything referencing Mohammad, or you're a gonner. Others of his ilk have [also] acted on that position.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Sorry, that was aimed at BWM.

  • BWM||

    No doubt, but again, would that, alone, be as big an issue? Or is that seen as adding insult to injury (and death and dismemberment)?

  • Billy Idol||

    I'm all for idolatry!

  • Judy Tenuta||

    Who wants to practice Judyism?

  • ||

    Me too, if she's hot.

  • Cytotoxic||

    How is a failed and misguided nation-building exercise the same as 'conquering'?

    And when those cartoons came out, I remember thousands of Muslims that violently protested against Denmark. AQ targeted the embassy and the cartoonist. Oops, sorry, didn't mean to step on your non-interventionist delusions there buddy.

  • BWM||

    By being exactly the same? And I don't see how Muslims being pissed at many countries for interfering negates my arguments that we tend to be the number 1 enemy (or 2, after Israel).

  • sevo||

    Tulpa|12.11.10 @ 9:06PM|#
    "And of course, the secular post-Christian powers in Europe haven't exactly behaved themselves well either. At the rate they're going, it would take militant Islamic terrorists about 2000 years to match the death toll from the activities 20th century European powers."
    Truly stupid, truly:
    'See, Muslims are really as bad as Hitler and Stalin, so we should feel all warm and cuddly...'
    Stupid beyond belief.

  • BWM||

    Are you disputing that the Muslims have not caused anywhere near as much death and destruction as the leaders of predominately christian nations?

  • sevo||

    "Are you disputing that the Muslims have not caused anywhere near as much death and destruction as the leaders of predominately christian nations?"

    Maybe my correction answers the question, but my point is that claiming Islam hasn't been as bad as Hitler and Stalin is scant praise.

  • sevo||

    'See, Muslims are really as bad as Hitler and Stalin, so we should feel all warm and cuddly...'

    Damn; hit "preview"
    'See, Muslims *aren't* really as bad as...'

  • BWM||

    I agree, again, but there's a lesson to be learned there; Hitler's rise was largely facilitated by circumstances at the time, even if his actions were clearly not justified. So why not nip the problem in the bud?

  • underzog||

    This is a murder or attempted murder by one of your precious Muslims whom we're allegedly persecuting.

    Contrary to your doped up nonsensene about Islam being a great and peaceful religion and neo cons (read Jews) being low animal scum, a Pew poll shows that a majority of Muslims support killing people who leave Islam for another religion such as Christianity.

    Also, Hamas, which wants to wipe Israel off the map, is viewed favorably by about half the respondents (the percentages are probably greater for you anti-Semitic Libertarians, however). At least half the Nigerians love Al Qaida.

    Here is the link to a report on the Pew Poll of the many many violent Muslims

    "And that shalt call him Ishmael and he will be a wildman. His hand against everyman and everyman's hand against him."

    Genesis 16:11

    "The Arabs are savages who just don't want to use their mind."

    Ayn Rand

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

    me

  • ||

    You make me ashamed to be a Jew.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Underzog makes anyone ashamed to be anything other than underzog.

  • ?||

    Another jihadi *directly* citing his target's military actions in muslim countries as the reason for his attack.

    Is it *still* verboten to take note of such attacks in the "costs of war" column?

  • BWM||

    For those people who insist on only ever blaming one side or the other, yes, since clearly indiscriminate terrorism is worse than a controlled war.

  • sevo||

    "...your support for that stupid pig [cartoonist Lars] Vilks."
    Some "costs of war". Wonder what they'd do with Bill Mauldin....

  • BeltwayLurker||

    The only reason the Reason offices in DC have been spared is because there is no proof that Friday Funnies are cartoons.

  • ||

    Is there a "costs of free speech" column too?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    There was for Theo Van Gogh.

  • sevo||

    Gonna argue here. Killing someone isn't 'speech' under any interpretation I've seen; it's murder.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I meant, there was a high cost paid by Theo for HIS free speech.

  • In the USA...||

    it would be verboten to mention that the jihadist was Muslim.

  • sevo||

    Tulpa|12.11.10 @ 9:18PM|#
    "Ah. so it's ok to despise people for abstract beliefs, but not for actual activities they partake in."

    Let us count the straw men:
    1) Despise? Really?
    2) Abstract beliefs? You mean stupid superstitions?
    3) "not for actual activities they partake in."? Nope. Really don't care if you think mankind was dropped on the planet by large green men doing an experiment. Wear a bomb and kill people for your stupid bleefs and I get pissed.

  • BWM||

    Number 2 is not a strawman; a religion is the definition of an abstract belief. And for number 3, you just supported his point; why do you care enough about their motivation to be concerned over their faith, but not enough to actually look into any other causes? That's an awfully self-serving cut-off.

  • sevo||

    BWM|12.11.10 @ 9:58PM|#
    "Number 2 is not a strawman; a religion is the definition of an abstract belief."
    It becomes a strawman if it is presented as the reason for dislike.

    "And for number 3, you just supported his point; why do you care enough about their motivation to be concerned over their faith, but not enough to actually look into any other causes? That's an awfully self-serving cut-off."
    'Scuse me? I don't care what stupid bleefs anyone has until they use them to justify killing people. Then I care.
    What "other causes" do I need to look into when a whacko declares his stupidity?

  • BWM||

    Uh, the other causes. Like, the real ones, not the moral cape he dons to conceal his motives. Tell me, why is America so often called the great satan, yet we are, honestly, more socially restrained than, say, Amsterdam? You don't think that our overthrowing of sovereign governments, arming of tyrants, encouragement of war, and support of Israel, might just have something to do with why alot of people in the middle east are pissed at us? You don't think our ambassadors famous comment that the death of 100,000 Iraqi children, due to our strict control of Iraqi imports, was justified, might upset some people? Or how about when Clinton bombed one of the only two pharmaceutical plants in all of Africa (which obviously benefited the Muslims of the region) because of spurious "suspicions" of chemical weapon manufacturing? There's no excuse for murdering civilians, but when we murder their civilians, it's the worst form of hypocrisy to condemn them and then continue our policies.

  • sevo||

    "Tell me, why is America so often called the great satan, yet we are, honestly, more socially restrained than, say, Amsterdam? You don't think that our overthrowing of sovereign governments, arming of tyrants, encouragement of war, and support of Israel, might just have something to do with why alot of people in the middle east are pissed at us?"
    Got one word for you, Ben: Sweden.

  • BWM||

    Who is Ben and what does that have to do with Al-Jazeera hating us more than everyone, despite the fact that we fit their caractures less than other nations?

  • ||

    But do the people who call America the great Satan doing it because they actually know what America is like, or because they have a caricature in their minds that someone told them to believe in?

    I don't think radical Muslims really hate America because of something we've specifically done. To them we will always be the ultimate infidels, regardless of how we actually act. Why? Because we are far away and have very high name recognition, making us useful to radical leaders as the infidel scapegoat. This is how every violent ideological movement behaves.

  • ||

    The Ayotollah Khomeini was the first one to use that phrase, and he had very specific bones to pick with the US.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    Anybody would be pissed if Jimmy Carter was the one they had to thank for their rise to total power over an oil state.

  • ||

    And again, most Muslims didn't consider America an enemy until the 1960s.

    My feeling is that there are always going to be a few radicals who preach hatred of America using our spiritual offenses as justification. However, they're going to have a much harder time getting recruits to blow themselves up if we're not killing Muslim civilians and interfering in Muslim countries' domestic politics left and right.

  • Cytotoxic||

    By the 1960's, the Arab-Islamic world was disenfranchised and in a malaise. So was Germany in the late 1920's/early1930's. That and their inferior culture made for a breeding ground of anti-westernism that has become a war against modernity. Which is why they are for killing cartoonists and apostates in Western countries and Panamanians aren't leading a jihad against America.

  • BWM||

    I disagree, specifically because of notes like the one in the article here, and because of what's out there on Al-Jazeera, and even bin-Laden's own fatwas; all of them do call us general names, yes, but they back them up with specific, real-world events. One of the most famous, as I mentioned somewhere in this thread, was when our ambassador said it was "worth it" that 100000 Iraqi children died for want of medicine, solely so we could contain Saddam. The muslim world saw that as an admission by America that the lives of their very children were worth less than a meaningless political victory. Or when bin-Laden told us, in no uncertain terms, that the embassy bombings were because of our military presence in Saudi Arabia. The leaders do spin and exaggerate the claims, but they are true claims at heart.

  • hmm||

    The more shit like this happens the more I'm starting to think the world is seeing another holy war or crusade, but only half of the world is willing to recognize it. As dangerous as that kind of thinking can be, it's getting harder and harder to refute.

  • BWM||

    I think most people recognize it, but those who support war tend to claim that those who support other methods of resolving the dispute don't see a problem (because they don't support war). Religion is always a great way to cover wars over power and money (the cause of pretty much all wars at heart), and we need to address those root causes instead of assisting in the move towards a world-wide religious conflict.

  • sevo||

    BWM|12.11.10 @ 10:10PM|#
    "I think most people recognize it, but those who support war tend to claim that those who support other methods of resolving the dispute..."
    What "other methods" are possible?

  • BWM||

    Uh, well, we are the ones who started infiltrating and overthrowing their governments, so maybe stop that?

  • sevo||

    BWM|12.11.10 @ 10:23PM|#
    "Uh, well, we are the ones who started infiltrating and overthrowing their governments, so maybe stop that?"
    "We"? And when did "we" start? Perhaps with the USSR after WWII?
    And what "governments"? Maybe Egypt in '56?
    How many stupid justifications can you invent?

  • BWM||

    Yes, we, who helped the Baath party take over Iraq, Nasser take over Egypt, Quadafi take over Libya, the Shah reclaim Iran, and have helped the Saudi royal family maintain control over their Shi'a majority.

  • ||

    sevo, your historical ignorance is showing.

  • hmm||

    That's the point, there may be no solution. War is the end of negotiations, the point at which root causes are all that's left and resolving them isn't possible with words. So such issues are traditionally resolved with attrition, you kill enough that believe in whatever issue is contentious until it becomes unpalatable to believe that or no one is left.

    There seems to a group that has reached that stage with a support system unwilling to stop it, see Saudi Arabia. While the group being attacked refuses to recognize the issues are unresolvable from the other sides point of view.

    The question is, "Is there some paradigm outside of traditional means that will allow both sides to solve the problem."

  • hmm||

    Don't take what I said as being a war hawk. I think the wars we are in are bullshit and nation building is abominable. The situation just seems to be extremely lopsided as far as the view of what is going on.

  • sevo||

    "Don't take what I said as being a war hawk."
    Nor am I, but I wonder what sort of 'other options' can stop Muslims from killing those they don't like.

  • BWM||

    Yes, easily. War is not necessarily the last resort; for some, it's the first step. We've spent fifty years spitting on the Middle East; we give them money for oil, yes, and make them rich, but then we also try to control them. Iran is the most obvious example; after a popular revolution overthrew the tyrant who ran in, we launched a counter-revolution and put that tyrant back in power. Imagine how thrilled we would have been if, I don't know, Russia had helped Britian regain control of the US 10 years after the Revolutionary War? Even if we got free again, we'd hate Russia for a long time. Anyway, once Iran AGAIN overthrows the Shah, we put an embargo on Iran that lasts to this day (retarding their growth) and then we help arm Saddam and encourage him to go to war and murder how many Iranians? Then we wonder why Iran might not like us. Hell, we should be happy that the terrorist groups Iran backs don't really target us.

    Our solution is just to withdraw from that part of the world and stop trying to control them.

  • sevo||

    "Our solution is just to withdraw from that part of the world and stop trying to control them."
    Yep, that will keep suicide bombers from bombing places with cartoonists.
    How many stupid justifications can you invent?

  • BWM||

    Right, sorry; blatant prejudice is a more enlightened position, not my stupid "Evaluate foreign policy by standards other than our selfish, short-sighted demands". Are you just tired of losing the debate? Is that why you turn to insults?

  • ||

    While I think that sevo is basically right that making those policy changes won't change any radical Muslim animosity towards us, we should be making those changes anyway, because it's the right thing to do.

  • BWM||

    It may, at least, change the minds of future generations.

  • ||

    Not when those minds are force-fed whatever the leaders want them to hear.

  • BWM||

    Not to insult you, but I feel you are being a little high-minded; what makes you capable of independent thought but makes millions of muslims too stupid to think for themselves? I'm not saying it isn't harder with those kinds of influences, but despite the total lockdown of the entire Soviet bloc, there were still people arguing for liberty, and people were escaping in droves, at every opportunity, to the "evil United States". And given the fact that much of the middle east is online and gets many of our movies and TV shows, they are far more open than Russia was for 70 years.

  • ||

    Because you and I aren't raised by religious fanatics who teach us martyrdom. Come on, this isn't that hard to understand.

  • BWM||

    Neither is anyone else I've ever seen. And I WAS raised by a set of parents who have completely different beliefs than me, so my question still stands; how have I managed to develop independent thought despite my whole family think the same way, while other people are apparantly too stupid to do that?

  • ||

    LOL, so you think your upbringing had as much pressure from your parents as the kids who are taught day and night to die for Islam? You developed independent though because that's what parents allow their children to do in modern society.

  • ||

    And I'm STILL not talking about "millions of Muslims" as you keep referring to.

  • ||

    And I'm STILL not talking about "millions of Muslims" as you keep referring to.

  • BWM||

    Then what are you talking about at all? I'm talking about the millions of muslims that are angry at us, that make TV shows and write screeds against us, that encourage violence and hatred. I'm talking about terrorists. So if you aren't, I'm confused as to how we have been talking at all.

  • ||

    We're both talking about terrorists, but there aren't "millions" of these people.

  • ||

    If there are a billion Muslims, and one half of one percent of those Muslims are terrorist jihadis, then there are millions of terrorists.

    Actual estimates, howver, suggest that the percentage may be somewhat higher...

  • Cytotoxic||

    Iran's Mossadegh was a despot who stole oil facilities from those who built them. He had it coming. Controlling Iran? News to me-looks like they've been funding terror for 30 years! There's an easy way to end this: invade Iran, change the regime, and leave.

  • BWM||

    Oh, okay; so when a foreign nation does bad things, it's okay to kill them, unless that foreign nation is the US. But yeah, let's invade a country tougher and better armed than Iraq, with a much larger terrorist influence; that couldn't possibly be problematic. At least, as long as you don't consider the deaths of innocents as problems.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Those innocents are already dying asshole, and people like you share some of the blame. Victims of Iran's terror complex from Afghanistan to Israel to Iraq are 'innocent' too. Your fist sentence doesn't even make sense.

  • ||

    There are close to a billion Muslims in the world. If there were really a holy war going on in the world, it would be impossible not to recognize.

    Most Muslims are more concerned with full stomachs and securing shelter than waging jihad against infidels. Maybe if the US stopped propping up oppressive regimes in Muslim countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, allowed people in those countries to choose their own governments, and stopped monkeying with the oil trade to favor ourselves and our allies, that would be clearer. Sad reality is, democracy in the Arab world is not in the interests of the US or Europe, at least not until we suck the sands dry of oil.

  • sevo||

    "Most Muslims are more concerned with full stomachs and securing shelter than waging jihad against infidels. Maybe if the US stopped propping up oppressive regimes in Muslim countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, allowed people in those countries to choose their own governments,..."
    Yep, the US really hosed the Egyptian elections, right?
    How many stupid justifications can you invent?

  • BWM||

    Apparantly, you either are ignorant of, or refuse to mention, when we helped Nasser overthrow the Egyptian royal family to begin with.

  • sevo||

    BWM|12.11.10 @ 10:39PM|#
    "Apparantly, you either are ignorant of, or refuse to mention, when we helped Nasser overthrow the Egyptian royal family to begin with."
    So................
    what?

  • BWM||

    You out of arguments?

  • sevo||

    No, you're out of false equivalences.
    Nasser was part of the Muslim Brotherhood. Do you think Muslims were upset when the Brit-backed Egyptian royalty was overthrown?
    How many stupid justifications can you invent?

  • BWM||

    Now you are using circular arguments; you assume they'd be glad Nasser won because he was Muslim, and that supports your view that all they care about is Islam, which you support with Nasser, etc. No, they were upset because someone else was helping promote war and death in their country; it had nothing to do with WHO was doing it so much as WHAT was being done. Hell, even the Shah of Iran back in the 40's was upset after the Allied powers had peacetalks there; FDR insulted him by offering to help educate his people on how to deal with dust-bowl causing effect, like he was an idiot who needed help from the superior Americans. Is it arrogant? Sure is, but then again, it's also universal; we get pissed now when we hear that China openly contributes to political campaigns, which is a little less objectionable than, say, covert assistance to bloody revolutions.

  • ||

    You mean the elections where the candidates are Hosni Mubarak, Hosni M., and H. Mubarak?

    Following the peace treaty with Israel, between 1979 and 2003, the US has provided Egypt with about $19 billion in military aid, making Egypt the second largest non-NATO recipient of US military aid after Israel. Also, Egypt received about $30 billion in economic aid within the same time frame.

    I don't doubt that helps with keeping the opposition down.

  • BWM||

    I doubt he'll see why this is a bad thing. He's refusing to think if we don't spell it out for him.

  • hmm||

    revolutions tend to consist of small percentages of a greater population.

    Now I agree most Muslims don't give a shit about killing infidels. But most colonists didn't care about the king.

    I also agree with our allying with shitty regimes.

    My point was this is a holy war, you don't need every member of the religion for it to be a holy war, and the view of it being a holy war is lopsided.

  • BWM||

    It IS lopsided, in that it's primarily the west that sees it as a holy war, whereas it's more of an excuse for the Muslims. It's like Latin America; the Soviet Union's policy was to find a country with an unpopular government, send in operative to organize them under a communist banner, then "recognize" that they have "ideological brethren" in that country and send them guns and money to overthrow the government. "Communism" was just a rallying point; the people weren't really communist until years after this process started, it's just that all they had was a negative philsophy of "We hate the current government" but they needed a positive one to rally around. So one was supplied; that's why it only works with frustrated, angry minorities. If Islam itself drove people to violence, then it wouldn't matter if we were at war with them, and terrorism as it is would be old hat.

  • sevo||

    "It IS lopsided, in that it's primarily the west that sees it as a holy war,..."
    How many stupid justifications can you invent?

  • BWM||

    Fewer than you, it seems.

  • sevo||

    BWM|12.11.10 @ 11:03PM|#
    "Fewer than you, it seems.
    reply to this"
    Strange. I've invented none; you've covered the page with ignorant excuses.

  • BWM||

    You've done nothing but blame a religion, without even attempting to meet objections. You basically are attempting to turn this into a primary school argument;
    "uh uh!"
    "yeah huh!"

  • sevo||

    BWM|12.11.10 @ 11:09PM|#
    "You've done nothing but blame a religion, without even attempting to meet objections. You basically are attempting to turn this into a primary school argument;
    "uh uh!"
    "yeah huh!"
    I'm sorry you can't read, but stupidd\ is as stupid does

  • BWM||

    "uh uh!"

  • ||

    BWM, I think you're wrong on this one, but so is sevo, sort of. These terrorists are raised as children to be angry. If they weren't raised to be angry about US interventions in their country, then they would be raised to be angry about some other crime the infidels are committing. The main problem in your argument is that you assume that these people have a somewhat logical or reasonable motivation to go kill themselves and others. This is ridiculous. They are raised to be the opposite, illogical and willing to follow whatever their radical leaders tell them. If the West moved out of the East (which it should, anyway), the radical leaders would just tell them to be angry about something else the West is doing. The most important thing to remember is the masterminds behind terrorism are fucking crazy. They will NOT be reasonable and have a quid pro quo.

  • BWM||

    I'm trying not to write way too much, so here's a summary; I don't see evidence of that. I think that is basically what sevo thinks, and I don't mean to be insulting, but I think it results from a rather shallow analysis. The leaders are "crazy"? It seems to me that they are instead crafty and manipulative, managing to drive out local leaders for being "western" and "capitalist", only to move into their abandoned palaces and mansions. Reason just had an article about how popular our pop culture is with Saudi Arabia, including even Fox News. You may be right that the leaders would always try to promote war, but in all the history I've ever studied, it's never been the case that huge numbers of people were ready to fight and die, year after year, decade after decade, unless they felt that they were under attack. Some people might, yes, because there's always some crazy, and countries often launch short wars that take advantage of a standing military before public opinion turns against them; but to have massive numbers of terrorists in the PLA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Queda, there needs to be a massive enemy to fight.

    And if nothing else, consider this; it's proven far harder for terrorists to attack us at home than it is abroad, and it's less costly.

  • ||

    So you don't think sending out minions on religious suicide missions to kill innocent civilians doesn't *hint hint* qualify them as crazy? I never said they weren't smart and crafty and manipulative. You have to be if you want to perpetrate these crimes.

    And the Saudi Arabia story has nothing to do with this. The people who live in modern areas with access to television and the internet are for the most part not the ones being trained to be martyrs. Public opinion doesn't affect any of this because these people are isolated from the mainstream community. They are raised and taught by religious fanatics who can tell them whatever they want.

    And if nothing else, consider this; it's proven far harder for terrorists to attack us at home than it is abroad, and it's less costly.

    Yes, I already said we should get out of the Middle East.

  • BWM||

    I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to flat-out tell you you are wrong here. There is absolutely nothing to support that. I'm not saying that the idea might not be more popular in isolated areas, but your claim contradicts everything I have ever seen on this issue, and also raises some logical issues, like why Al-Jazeera even exists if their audience doesn't have TV (and they have children's shows on there). Not only that, but we KNOW it's false in at least some cases, like most domestic terrorist plots (even if they originate in the middle east). The 911 pilots didn't spend all that time going to flight school in completely different states without somehow seeing CNN (and some evidence suggests they weren't even very devout, but that's a can of worms). There's also cases of citizens of western cultures emmigrating and joining these organizations, so it's not a massive cult that somehow has the facilities to raise millions of kids from birth and brainwash them in isolation. Besides, most of the money for these groups come from well-educated government ministers in Iran and Saudi and the like; these people and their immediate circles are not ignorant savages. And I don't mean the leaders, I just mean the guys who write checks. The middle east is not nearly as backwards as is often portrayed.

    Now, if you are only discussing outright suicide bombers, I might lend some credence, but they are honestly a small threat; by definition, repeated attacks are a challenge for them, and even our death toll in Iraq shows hardly any influence from them. And as for whether the leaders are crazy, well, I guess we are looking at what precisely one means by crazy. Clearly, some sociopathic tendancies exist, to put it lightly, but I wouldn't say they are slobbering loons.

  • ||

    I'm not saying that the idea might not be more popular in isolated areas, but your claim contradicts everything I have ever seen on this issue, and also raises some logical issues, like why Al-Jazeera even exists if their audience doesn't have TV (and they have children's shows on there).

    Another, non-sequitur. What does Al-Jazeera have to do with terrorism?

    There's also cases of citizens of western cultures emmigrating and joining these organizations, so it's not a massive cult that somehow has the facilities to raise millions of kids from birth and brainwash them in isolation.

    No, that's not what I said. I said they are raised by religious fanatics, their parents, and isolated from mainstream culture.

    Besides, most of the money for these groups come from well-educated government ministers in Iran and Saudi and the like; these people and their immediate circles are not ignorant savages. And I don't mean the leaders, I just mean the guys who write checks. The middle east is not nearly as backwards as is often portrayed.

    Huh? Where did I call them dumb savages? Are you arguing with someone else here?

    Now, if you are only discussing outright suicide bombers, I might lend some credence, but they are honestly a small threat; by definition, repeated attacks are a challenge for them, and even our death toll in Iraq shows hardly any influence from them. And as for whether the leaders are crazy, well, I guess we are looking at what precisely one means by crazy. Clearly, some sociopathic tendancies exist, to put it lightly, but I wouldn't say they are slobbering loons.

    Wow, can I get an honest reply to my arguments instead of lampooning them? I'm talking about terrorists here, and terrorist leaders. I thought that was clearly what we were discussing here, I guess not... I never said they were stupid, I said they were crazy. There is a difference.
  • BWM||

    Okay, I don't even know what you are saying anymore. Either that or I over-estimated what you know on this issue. Terrorists are people from all over the world, from all walks of life, who see things like Al-Jazeera, who attend rallies, who associate with fanatics and grow to agree with them, and to hate Israel and the west. Then they act; maybe to make and spread propoganda (hence, Al-Jazeera), or to finance them, or to arm them, or logistics, or to be foot-soldiers in the fight. If this wasn't true, then these numerous cases of western citizens engaging in terrorist attacks or abandoning their life to go join Al-Queda in Yemen wouldn't occur. I would agree that some people (the unmarried men from poorer communities) are more likely to join and die for the cause, but it's not anything close to brainwashing; it's showing images of bombed buildings and other crimes by US and then telling people they can help if they are willing to fight.

    So I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. You say a thing, I respond to it, you get angry. That last bit about whether the leaders are crazy; all I did was discuss exactly what one defines as crazy, and you accuse me of claiming you said they were stupid, which I never did. So please, restate your point, since I apparantly don't understand where you stand.

  • ||

    Okay, I don't even know what you are saying anymore.

    Really? Because I've already repeated what I've said in as clear and simple terms as possible. But somehow you keep responding to some made up person's arguments that all Muslims are dumb savages and they're terrorists because they're just stupid. That is literally what you were countering in the post above. I'm not going to repeat what I've said over and over again.

    And I think you need to learn a little bit more about Arab culture. For example, Al-Jazeera isn't a propaganda machine for terrorists, it's a very modern and relatively balanced news organization.

  • Cytotoxic||

    @Heller: thank you. Those jihadi leaders already teach their followers such things. For example, when Mecca was taken by extremists and stormed during a botched French Commando op, guess what country violent protesters hated on? America, of course! Doesn't matter what America does, it will be hated on. Hell, they'll believe our vaccines are making them sterile because they want to hate us.

  • BWM||

    Then let's just get out of there and see what happens. THEN we can see for sure exactly how much of their hatred is pure zeal without basis.

  • ||

    OK, let's do it.

  • ||

    BWM, I think you're wrong on this one, but so is sevo, sort of. These terrorists are raised as children to be angry. If they weren't raised to be angry about US interventions in their country, then they would be raised to be angry about some other crime the infidels are committing. The main problem in your argument is that you assume that these people have a somewhat logical or reasonable motivation to go kill themselves and others. This is ridiculous. They are raised to be the opposite, illogical and willing to follow whatever their radical leaders tell them. If the West moved out of the East (which it should, anyway), the radical leaders would just tell them to be angry about something else the West is doing. The most important thing to remember is the masterminds behind terrorism are fucking crazy. They will NOT be reasonable and have a quid pro quo.

  • ||

    If that's the case, it's strange that they weren't being raised to be angry at us until the 1970s.

  • BWM||

    That's a point, as well. In fact, some evidence shows that Hitler may have influenced the first radical Muslims, and it gradually spread from there. So the question is, if they didn't always have control, what changed to allow it?

  • ||

    Uh no, it isn't. Before the 1970s these crazy extremists had no power. Than we gave it to them.

  • BWM||

    What exactly are you refuting?

  • ||

    This:

    If that's the case, it's strange that they weren't being raised to be angry at us until the 1970s.
  • BWM||

    I don't see how you refuted that. It seems like you supported it.

  • ||

    How is it strange that we didn't see all this Islamic terrorism before 1970, if we already know that the people who propagate and fund that terrorism had no power before 1970? I don't understand why this needs to be explained. This is a clear refutation of crimethink's statement.

  • ||

    Al Qaeda doesn't have power anywhere in the Muslim world anymore, and never had much even in the past; in fact they're despised by the people in power in such places as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

  • Ice Nine||

    Here's the sad reality. The world, led by it's strongest country of course, is simply never going to allow the fuel that runs the engines of that world to be turned off on the whim of a relative few sand surfers who happen to own it by geographical accident. We are glad to teach them how to recover it, we are glad to build the recovery infrastructure for them, we are willing to pay them exorbitant prices for it - but we are never going to allow them to control it and to blackmail the world with that control. And no sane person should expect us to do so. We can anguish over that all we want but that is a fact, and this whole conversation is mooted by it.

  • sevo||

    Ice Nine|12.11.10 @ 11:12PM|#
    "Here's the sad reality. The world, led by it's strongest country of course, is simply never going to allow the fuel that runs the engines of that world to be turned off on the whim of a relative few sand surfers who happen to own it by geographical accident."
    Yep, that's the reason the US backs Israel, right?
    Or is that the reason people invent to justify stupid presumptions?
    Pretty sure it's the latter.

  • Ice Nine||

    >>"Yep, that's the reason the US backs Israel, right?"

    If the critically important strategic location of Israel isn't obvious to you, no amount of explaining will help.

    >>"Or is that the reason people invent to justify stupid presumptions?"

    Nothing invented there. Regardless, your question is hard to answer without knowing what these "stupid presumptions" you refer to are.

  • BWM||

    You. He's refering to you and anything you say. Tulpa and I have apparantly reduced him to spewing insults instead of arguments. Although I don't see the major importance of Israel either, especially when we could have more peace with all of Israel's neighbors if we stopped supporting Israel.

  • ||

    It's strategically important for getting the votes and campaign contributions of wealthy Jews and their less wealthy but more numerous Evangelical puppets.

  • BWM||

    While I'd have a hard time ever believing they were that important, the wealth nowadays of the countries that hate Israel more than balances that out. Although some voters are dogmatically attached to Israel, we also have the opposite side as well. Our international standing tends to take a beating for supporting Israel too, although I'd argue that's largely one-sided.

  • ||

    Saudi nationals are not allowed to make campaign contributions. I'm talking about Americans, among whom Jews are far more influential than Muslims.

    And don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining. Obama and Biden, along with previous presidents, frequently make speeches to Jewish organizations pledging eternal support of Israel. Last I knew they weren't going to mosques pledging to make sure the Palestinians got a fair shake in the negotiations.

    Watch the 700 Club sometime if you want to see how Evangelicals view the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Unsurprisingly, the Old Testament says that God wants the Jews to dominate the Holy Land forever. As is typical with Evangelical "exegesis", it's a matter of "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it," regardless of any questions of why God removed the Jews from Israel during the Babylonian exile and why Jesus was predicting the expulsion from Judaea in the gospels if God meant that to be taken literally. Not to mention the conflation of craven practically-atheist politicians at the top of the Israeli state with biblical leaders like Deborah and Hezekiah.

    In any case, the Israel boosters far outnumber dogmatic Israel opponents.

  • BWM||

    I agree with you on all but numbers; I frankly feel like our own leaders game these fools with little real concern for their opinions. And while I know there are plenty of them out there, I seem to find far more reports OF these crazy pro-Israel zealots than I do EXAMPLES of them. Even in places more inclined to contain them than Reason, it seems like they are less influential than some people claim. But that's just my take.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The Arab lobby is extremely influential-far more than the Israel lobby.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    Not according to memogate documents.

  • BWM||

    Sorry, but I call nonsense on that. The second largest oil reserves in the world are in Canada. There's massive reserves in Mexico, the US, Russia, Venezuala, and even Vietnam has recently opened some oil rigs. The middle east does NOT control the oil market; the only reason it sometimes seems that way is because many western nations make drilling for oil far more expensive than the middle eastern countries do, making it cheaper and easier to buy it and then ship it across the planet than to just open a new oil well at home. Furthermore, our high gas prices tend to be compounded by a similar repression of refineries; we haven't opened one in over 30 years, so more crude wouldn't do much to help us. Attempts by OPEC to keep oil prices high have actually failed, because it bankrupts them far more than it does us, since our economy is not 90% oil. However, wars in the middle east? Now that is a surefire way to jack up oil prices, as the futures market goes crazy. Instability has caused more fluctuations than any intentional policies.

  • Ice Nine||

    >>"Sorry, but I call nonsense on that. The second largest oil reserves in the world are in Canada. There's massive reserves in Mexico, the US, Russia, Venezuala, and even Vietnam has recently opened some oil rigs.

    We're not talking about reserves; we're talking about oil supply extant. That's what matters strategically *now*. I am aware of the other sources but it takes a long time to develop reserves and so those only matter in the future. In that regard, though it is not currently pertinent, you are of course correct.

  • BWM||

    Uh, those are being heavily developed right now; the US imports most of it's oil (besides the 40% we make at home) from three countries; Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia. We have an embargo on Iran, which has, I think, the second largest reserves in the middle east, and we could get some of that if we dropped said embargo. Anyway, oil doesn't take THAT long to start drilling; and if we were to stop making it so damn hard (or flat-out impossible) in most of the country, we could have more, easy. Even if OPEC decided to screw us over, all we'd have to do is buy more from non-OPEC countries, who would then buy the shortfall from OPEC. If OPEC raised it on everyone, they'd just shoot themselves in the foot, both by hurting their profits in the short-term, but also encouraging domestic devlopment in the long-term, as businesses would be tired of their crap and go for more reliable sources.

    And anyway, I maintain that peaceful trade has always proven a better way of getting goods than war, and again, I think this is proven by the fact that war and instability are shown to cause massive increases in the prices of crude, more than any intentional policy would.

  • Ice Nine||

    >>"The more shit like this happens the more I'm starting to think the world is seeing another holy war or crusade, but only half of the world is willing to recognize it."

    In the late morning of 9-11-01, all previous political and ideological groups in this country spontaneously reorganized themselves into two new ones - the Sane and the Insane.

  • BWM||

    Basically, it ressurrected the Cold War.

  • ||

    This'll help stop Islamophobia? Smooth move, Exlax! (No one said suicide bombers were the smart ones.)

  • Underzog||

    Golly geee.... My Rhoemite friends are ignoring me.

    But I have another audio/visual aid for you dopers. You guys are so smug and think only us Jews will die by the Arab/Muslim terrorists, but they will kill you, too.

    Here is the warning to an evil world (yourselves included) about how you are next to be killed by Arab/Islamic terrorists and your appeasement and me too anti-Semitism will not help you

    Enjoy (veg): Buddies you're Next

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!" (Actually, there is plenty to fear, but it is still a nice saying)

  • BWM||

    If I support wars to kill Arabs, THAT would make me an anti-semite, not the other way around.

  • sevo||

    Sophistry isn't gonna make you friends.

  • BWM||

    Neither is calling everyone who disagrees with you "stupid". At least "sophistry" was an accusation I don't expect from 4th graders.

  • sevo||

    Stupid is as stupid does.

  • BWM||

    Like your last dozen comments. If you aren't even going to try, why are you still here?

  • sevo||

    To make sure ignoramuses like you don't go unchallenged, ignoramus.

  • BWM||

    But you aren't challenging me; I'm presenting facts and well-reasoned arguments, and you present insults and childish antics. If you honestly hope to prevent me fron changing anyone's mind, you'd be better off either responding intelligently, or shutting up and not making your side look like intollerant fools who can't present any argument besides "Islam is evil", and can't even defend that if pressed.

  • sevo||

    BWM|12.11.10 @ 11:16PM|#
    "But you aren't challenging me;..."
    Pointing out your stupidity may not seem like a challenge to you, but, hey, it's OK by me.

  • BWM||

    Well, if that's all you can manage, so be it; it would be cruel of me to expect you to do more than you are capable of. You can go to recess now.

  • sevo||

    BWM|12.11.10 @ 11:24PM|#
    "...it would be cruel of me to expect you to do more than you are capable of."
    The sympathy of ignoramuses is always, well, ignored.
    Go away, jackass.

  • BWM||

    Now sevo, don't use that kind of language in the classroom, or you'll have to go to timeout. The grown-ups are talking.

  • ||

    Don't mind the retard, nothing of any substance to see here.

  • ||

    So much for his reducing islamophobia in Sweden and elsewhere...If anything this Darwin award winner just fanned it. And luckily for his would be victims he proved less than competent at setting of his bombs.

    I will note that in current times a majority of the nastier terrorism is from islamists. Not from their more politically motivated cousins who for the most part are more ethnically motivated than from any grandiose ideal. It seems so far as the islamists are concerned the crusades ain't over...

  • ||

    The only death was the bomber and, from the photographs floating around in the Swedish press, property damage seems to be minimal.

    Can i just step in here and say this is the best Muslim terrorist attack ever.

    In fact if all terrorist attacks ended like this I think I would have far more sympathy for their plight.

    Just saying.

  • ||

    Just read some people got injured.

    I retract my earlier statement.

  • wingnutx||

    IKEA'LL YOU!!!

  • ||

    nice..

  • ziggy||

    BWM "I think most people recognize it, but those who support war tend to claim that those who support other methods of resolving the dispute don't see a problem (because they don't support war). Religion is always a great way to cover wars over power and money (the cause of pretty much all wars at heart), and we need to address those root causes instead of assisting in the move towards a world-wide religious conflict."
    I dont think "most"recognize this, if they can't even identify who is doing it. Terrorist attacks by muslims of all different races have occurred, so the reason can't only be the US incursions in the arab world. In fact the has had the same active role in Latin America, yet we didn't seem to react by blowing ourselves up!

    THe problem is Islam and how closely its believer's follow it. Christians in general today are way more secular than they want to admit and most acts of violence in the name of christianity (crusades) really had a lust for power and money more than "converting" anyone.

    Until those who keep on saying Islam is a religion of peace wake up and recognize that it is not a religion of peace, we will continue losing the ideological war.
    However the war cannot be won with more foreing adventures, simply stating the obvious and attacking their ridiculous bliefs(just like has been done with christianity)should do the trick.

    As much as some may hate to admit, modern western values (those that began to develop from during the "enlightenment") are vastly superior to their religion based philosophical predecessors of which Islam is one, which is why their countries reflect the intolerance and hate(among the population and government)for gays, women's rights etc. Much of which has been defeated in western world.

    Like I said if many can't admit even this, then we have no shot at "winning"this ideological war.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    tl;dr

  • BWM||

    Yes, but again, if that's it, then how is it so recent? How is it that we were at our high point with the middle east during Ike's term, only to become a hated enemy just 20 years later? No doubt radical Islam has been a factor, but in just 20 years, there isn't time to brainwash an entire region of the world; clearly there was a receptive audience to that message already fully-grown. And I don't know of many cases where such messages of death and destruction are picked up without some other reason to start with.

    And also, I don't think it matters that different races in different parts of the world have attacked us. In fact, their own testimony (like the bombed mentioned in this article) says the opposite. The foiled attack of Fort Dix, for example; the attackers left a message specifically saying they were protesting our actions. All of these people ARE united by Islam, yes; so when we were hit here, or in Tanzania, or the Phillipines, we got many of the same messages about our having troops near Mecca and our supporting tyrants like Saddam.

  • Sadaam||

    NOT supported anymore pal.

  • affenkopf||

    Doesn't this show that we don't need all these security measures since 99% of Islamic terrorist are incompetent losers who will take themselves out?

    If you want an accurate portrayal of how most terrorists plan & act watch the film Four Lions.

  • Dr. Anony||

    Who won?

  • rhea||

    The destruction of the west from these idiots will not be because they are stronger, it will be because they sacrifice their safety on the altar of political correctness.

  • GAY MARRIAGE||

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'm sure MediaMatters will excoriate Epstein for this!

  • BeltwayLurker||

    What is wrong with concensual adult sex that they had? I see Woody Allen movie potential here.

  • ||

    Nothing should be illegal here...

    But yeah it is wrong to fuck your daughter....in this case it should not be criminal...still it is wrong.

    That being said we can now make fun of left wing academics in whole new ways.

  • ||

    make fun of left wing academics in whole new ways.

    Huffington post columnists also.

    Oh wait didn't Nick and Matt recently write there?

    You sick sick sick bastards!!!

  • BeltwayLurker||

    Think he is a closet banjo fan? Youbetcha!

  • My two cents||

    reading some posts, I noticed and wanted to clarify some things;

    The Crusades were defensive, the first one was actually a mercenary levy made on the request of the embattled byzantine emperor. It got out of hand and became more religiously orientated when Pope Urban worked up a religious frenzy in western Europe.

    The Spanish inquisition may have killed as little as 3000 people over the span of some 400 years. Muslims killed more on 9/11...one afternoon.

    Muslims were notorious slave traders and actually enslaved just as much if not more than the Europeans. In fact the word slave itself is related to the word Slav, Christians who were enslaved by the Turks. It was western christians and western imperialists that put an end to the slave trade; The British navy prolly deserves the most credit for this as they put themselves at great risks fighting against Muslim pirates.

    Suicide bombing has more to with Islam than with territorial occupation. The Chinese treatment of the buddhists in Tibet has not lead to monks blowing themselves up and murdering innocent people in, say, Beijing subways, but they are on alert with Uighur terrorists (muslims).

    There is no toleration towards other religions in the Koran. What very little instances of clemency and mercy we see in it are only directed towards jews and christians, as they are people of the book (dhimmi). Even if we take this for granted, many of those teachings have been rendered null and void by the practice of abrogation in the Koran...what I mean by this is that many of the verses have been amended or turned into obsolete dead letters. NONE of the instances of tolerance apply to polytheists, hence the brutal conquest of Hindus and Buddhists in South Asia.

    So can we please stop making excuses for these fuckers, can we just call a spade a spade and put aside the moral equivalence. The west is superior to these people by every moral metric imaginable.

    read the Koran if you don't believe me

  • ziggy||

    MOre to the point, just as some blame US foreign intervention (which has certainly played a role). The same interventions have happened all over the world. How many corrupt governments and dictators has the US supported in Latin America? Did Latin american respond by blowing themselves up?
    Saying Islam is 80/90% of the cause does not negate the fact that the US policy in the middle east and throughout the world has been horrendous and probably backfired more than help.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    Yes, the world would have been better off if evil USA had left the Marxists alone.

  • BWM||

    Uh, yeah. I mean, maybe not literal suicide bombers, but countries were ripped apart between Soviet-backed communist death-squads and US-backed fascist death-squads. Actual suicide bombers really aren't the problem, I should think; it's the fact that we are being attacked at all. Virtually all the animosity Latin America has against us is due to our meddling in their countries (continuing now with the drug war), not just a little bit. Why would it be the inverse elsewhere?

  • BeltwayLurker||

    Fascists are socialists.

  • BWM||

    EVERY metric? The Muslim world stopped expanding 600 years ago; we've spent that entire time beating them back. We conquered their nations and ruled them from a thousand miles away, and when they rebelled, we then saw fit to clandestinely support violence and revolution, right up until this day. WE are the ones who GAVE Saddam power; WE put the Taliban in control and armed Al-Queda; WE put Qudafi in power. So can we stop acting completely innocent when we get mad that the very "fuckers" we put in power are the ones making everyone, their own people and us, miserable? Can we at least fess up to the mistakes? We have the moral highground, yes, but as long as we continue to act self-righteous, as if we are the arm of God here, we are going to piss off Muslims and have attacks. There's no reason we can't admit our mistakes AND condemn the acts of cowards AND try to move towards a mutually beneficial policy.

    As far as the Crusades being defensive, even your own description has a hard time supporting that; basically, Christian European knights were paid to go kill Muslims for the Romans. And if suicide bombing is just about Islam, explain why Sri-Lanka has had so many done by communist groups.

  • America||

    I'd like to point out that we had very little to do with Sadaam getting into power and nothing to do with arming AQ. The Taliban would've gotten those weapons anyway. We had every right to help them fight the Soviet.

  • BWM||

    We supported the Baath party, but Saddam was not yet the head of it. And we helped arm Al-Queda. And we had no right to interfere with their country, especially when our interference is what put the brutal Taliban in power. If you want to think so, fine, but don't get the rest of us blown up because you think it's okay to toy with the rest of the world for our benefit.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You have no understanding of rights. Nations that don't protect individual rights have no sovereignty and therefore America has every right to interfere with their affairs. "Putting the Taliban and AQ in power"? WTF are you talking about? The Pakistani ISI backed the Taliban. Osama had nothing to do with the elements America funded in Afghanistan; he was a pretty boy. America also armed elements that would later fight the Taliban and AQ at least as much as it armed later anti-American ones. Oh, and they are trying to blow up Swedes and Danes so so much for blowback.

  • ||

    Nations that don't protect individual rights have no sovereignty and therefore America has every right to interfere with their affairs.

    Ah. So the Chinese have the right to interfere in US affairs since we offend against individual rights by locking people up for inhaling plant fumes, and bursting into people's houses in the middle of the night and shooting their pets looking for said combustible plants.

  • Citizen||

    Rate of terrorism among Muslims in the West: 1 in every 500K-1,000,000

    Rate of crime among African American males: 1 in three

  • RyanXXX||

    define "crime"

  • ||

    It's a well known fact that negroes smoke the marihuana cigarettes and then get uppity ideas about taking our white women.

  • hmm||

    Europe is going to have a rough decade or two for patraiting their colonials. They of course brought some of it on themselves for treating them as second class citizens. But patriating large groups that have drastically different social structures and norms than your group is wrought with social issues. As well intended as the idea is.

  • ||

    I very rarely say nice things about my country. But in this context, America is just so awesome. We incorporate lots and lots of people and, so far, they assimilate very well. Assuming that the lack of suicide bombers in the US is a sign of success.

  • ||

    That's what some illegal immigration opponents argue about the situation at our southern border, too.

  • ||

    Good Morning Reason!

    This suicide bomber was a slacker.

    I just finished a book called The Forever War by Dexter Filkins. In it, he talks about how Al Queda overplayed it hand in Iraq by indiscriminately killing innocent Iraqis. The consequence of which pissed of the Shia's and turned them against Al Quada.

    So, IMHO, it is a race between when good muslims will decide that they are tired of having these terrorist kill in their name (and do something about it) and a craven western electorate that is more that willing to give up its rights in the name of security theatre (i.e. the willingness to be sexually molested in the name airporty security theatre)

  • robc||

    The Forever War is by Joe Haldeman. Filkins reusing the title 34 years later is pretty cheesy.

  • MNG||

    Avvording to Robert Pape's research suicide bombing originated with the Tamil Tigers and is tied more to occupations than Islam.

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/jul/18/00017/

  • BeltwayLurker||

    In that case, move along. Nothing to see here.

  • hmm||

    I've read that. The problem is that tactics are adopted. While occupations account for more suicide bombs I wander what the rate of shift towards religious based is, if there is any shift.

  • BWM||

    I don't think there IS a shift; the guys doing it today accuse us of occupying Iraq and formerly complained of us occupying Saudi. Granted, there are stretching it, but THEY believe it.

  • TAXED & REGULATED MARIJUANA||

  • American Family Outrage Center||

    We are outraged!

  • Nuh Uh||

    According to a source connected with Miley ... the smoke filling the bong is a natural herb called salvia which has psychedelic qualities.

    According to a source not connected with Miley ... the smoke filling the bong is jenkem.

  • ||

    I call bullshit. A second after she takes a hit she starts "hallucinating?"

  • Been There||

    Funny how her bong assistants say, "Hold it, hold it." Really? You're not supposed to exhale immediately? Things haven't changed in 40 years.

  • RyanXXX||

    Have you tried Salvia? It aint weed, my friend.

  • ||

    This FAQ

    http://sagewisdom.org/faq.html#Section 5

    says the first effects are felt in a minute. Nowhere does it say instant effects. Anyway, first time users fake immediate reactions to a drug for a variety of reasons: nervousness, placebo effect, wanting to fit in, etc.

  • Binky||

    Sweden's prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, has described two explosions that shook Stockholm's central shopping district on Saturday as "unacceptable" because, in his words "Sweden is an open society."

    So, if Sweden were a closed society, these explosions would be acceptable. We'd better be careful about defining "open society".

  • Jonathan||

    They just released CCTV video of the attack. Now we know why it wasn't successful.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnL-7x4n4d8

  • hmm||

    I love that commercial.

  • ||

    Something tells me that's never going to get on air.

  • ||

    I've no desire to read 372 comments. I'm SWAGing ~100 are bed-wettingly stupid.

  • Theodore Sturgeon||

    No dude, way too low.

  • Binky||

    Let's respectfully petition for a "comments summary" feature.

  • Louis Fairycan||

    At least replace the "submit" button with a "breathalyzer before being allowed to submit" button.

  • BeltwayLurker||

    You MADD nuts are everywhere.

  • ||

    I pretty stopped reading comments about here:

    Nasser was part of the Muslim Brotherhood.


    Yeah, right, that's why they kept trying to kill him and why he kept executing their leaders.

    Nasser was an Arab nationalist. His version of Arab nationalism included modernization, secularism and socialism (which put him at odds with Islam, especially the Wahhabi
    version pushed by the Muslim Brotherhood) and anti-westernism which he had in common with them.

    Mind you, he, like politicians everywhere, had no problems invoking religion when it suited his purposes, but for the most part he does not appear to have been a particularly pious or even observant Muslim.

    See also, Hussein, S. for another example of a similar Arab politician.

  • ||

    Mubarak, Hosni.
    Saud, House of.

  • ||

    Mubarak, sure.

    However, the Saudi Royals seem to be slightly different. They have pretty much given carte blanche to the Wahhabist imans to 1) placate them, and b) to keep the plebs in their place.

    The Saudi Royal House looks pretty much like a dog being wagged by a Wahhabi tail.

    Nobody ever questioned who was weilding the power in thecase of Saddam Saddam.

    Trouble is, to many of the explanations of the impetus behind ME terrorism miss the mark because they oversimplify.

    Causes can run the gamut from zealots who hate "us" for our "freedoms" (largely our freedom to be impious, decadent, materialistic, unchaste ifidels) to those who target some of their fellow Muslims for being either insufficiently pious or for accepting false doctrines to, quite frankly, settling tribal squabbles and using religion to rationalize the killing of fellow humans.

  • RyanXXX||

    You left out the ones who see American foreign policy as an attack on Islam, which are the majority

  • Cytotoxic||

    If they are the majority, why are most victims of Islamic terrorism...other Muslims?

  • RyanXXX||

    If most of their victims are other Muslims, why should the West give a shit?

    And the two aren't mutually exclusive. It's possible to hate American foreign policy and hate Shiites at the same time

  • Cytotoxic||

    They seem to actually have a strong correlation. Like something fundamentalist we are missing here...

  • ||

    That's kind of included in hating us for our "freedoms". In this case, our freedom to be "over there" (overfed and oversexed) corrupting their youth with our impious and decadent and overbearing ways.

    Which is not to say that there are not many improvements that can be made in our foreign policy. Given the fact that with a global economy, "we" kind of do have to be "over there" we should certainly try to figure out a way to do some of what we do without pushing so many buttons.

  • ||

    RyanXXX

    Just to be clear, I agree that most of "our" (ie the USA and western Europe) problems with terrorism driven by Islamic fundamentalism is due to our foreign policy which is seen as propping up the governments that oppress them.

    But that said, any foreign policy we adopt will be unsatisfactory to the extremists in that it will still be secular and hence impious, decadent and materialistic and will be seen by them as corrupting and dangerous.

  • ||

    I might add, not all of the discontent in the ME is due to unhappiness about insufficient Islamic piety. Much of it is due to nationalism, either Arab or Iranian. The US and Western Europe are seen as forces which act against the nationalist aspirations there. The fact that we are impious licentious infidels is a side issue which gives the extremist imans leverage to sway the impressionable disaffected populace.

    Islamic fundamentalism is just one of the forces that takes advantage of this discontent. Religious fundamentalism is like this almost everywhere.

    Any attempt to analyze this in a Hit and Run length comment is bound to be an oversimplification.

    :)

  • RyanXXX||

    Of course there will always be a minority who actually get pissed about those fat Americans and their reality TV. But they won't have nearly as many followers if little Arab kids aren't getting blown up by the Israelis, or starving to death from sanctions

  • ||

    Point taken. I do not disagree.

    I perhaps worded things badly. I certainly agree that Islamic extremist terro attack directed at the west are a reaction to our interventionist foreign policy.

    I was merely trying to explain the ones that are not since they seem to be a sticking point for many of the commenters here.

  • Cuddly Soft Balls of Death||

    I had to read a long, long way down this comment thread to find someone mention the "stop being afraid of us or we'll KILL YOU" part of the suicide note.

    Irony, it's not just for breakfast anymore.

  • Spur||

    Do you think Moynihan posted this so we didn't think he was dead?

  • Hugh Akston||

    For a thread with no pictures of little girls crying, this one is rapidly approaching epic status.

  • ||

    How are 500 posts of such tedious character?

  • ||

    Never underestimate the power of two dumb commenters (sevo and DWM) disagreeing over something.

  • sevo||

    Never overestimate heller's braincell count.

  • ||

    Never underestimate the rate at which sulfuric acid dissolves the female condom in your rectum.

  • sevo||

    Never overestimate tupla's ignorance; see above for proof.
    What an ignorant asshole.

  • sevo||

    "Trouble is, to many of the explanations of the impetus behind ME terrorism miss the mark because they oversimplify.
    Causes can run the gamut from zealots who hate "us" for our "freedoms" (largely our freedom to be impious, decadent, materialistic, unchaste ifidels) to those who target some of their fellow Muslims for being either insufficiently pious or for accepting false doctrines to, quite frankly, settling tribal squabbles and using religion to rationalize the killing of fellow humans."

    IOWs, Muslim whackos will chose any reason they can find to, well, act like whackos?
    So our proper response is to, what, agree that Muslims have various reasons to kill everyone they don't like and let it go at that?

  • sevo||

    Isaac Bartram|12.12.10 @ 1:26PM|#
    "I pretty stopped reading comments about here:
    Nasser was part of the Muslim Brotherhood.
    Yeah, right, that's why they kept trying to kill him and why he kept executing their leaders."

    So a history lesson means you prefer ignorance?

  • ||

    Oh, OK.

  • ||

    Please God, tell me, where do these dickheads come from?

  • Spur||

    I think what an epic, vacuous thread like this tells the folks at reason - they need to blog on the weekends...

  • Weakened Commenters||

    "Our actions speak for themselves."

  • ||

    For example, when Mecca was taken by extremists and stormed during a botched French Commando op,...


    Huh....wuh...what the fuck, what the fucking fuck?


    Pakistanis were the only forces besides Saudis– as non-Muslims cannot enter the city of Mecca.





    Jesus, Mary and Joseph, is this the day for all illiterates and ignoramuses (ignorami) to comment on HitandRun?

    So, yeah, Arab halfwits blame Americans whenever anything goes wrong, and American halfwits blame...the French.

  • CavMedic||

    Interestingly enough the article on the leader of the group that siezed the Grand Mosque mentioned French special forces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juhayman_al-Otaibi

    So who knows the truth of the matter. The Saudis certainly wouldn't want to broadcast the fact that they had to let infidels into the holy city because Islamic troops were so inept that they couldn't retake the holiest mosque in Islam from a few hundred militants when they enjoyed a 20:1 advantage and had armor and air superiority.

  • ||

    Cytotoxic|12.12.10 @ 7:57PM|#

    The Arab lobby is extremely influential-far more than the Israel lobby.



    Ayup, the morons are out in force.

    Must be the phase of the moon.

  • Pekingnews||

    Strongly condemned the terrorist attacks

  • MuscularLiberal||

    This bomber is the latest example of violent extremists who have slipped through the net because 'community leaders' and academics in the UK failed to report their behaviour. Britain's becoming an exporter of terror because we're too scared to be robust and vociferous in calling out terrorists in the making: http://bit.ly/gAo4hW

  • nekoxgirl||

    I'm not sure how I feel about Islam alone being inherently more violent than any other religion. It seemed that Muslims were relatively peaceful prior to the latter part of the 20th century.

    If my understanding of their rhetoric is correct, it seems as Islam has absorbed Marxist ideas, which has led to their hatred of the capitalist West. It's not so much Islamofascism as Islamosocialism that has turned the Middle East violent.

    When the CIA helped overthrow the leader of Iran, it was because he was trying to naturalize their oil fields. When the Iranians regained control of their government in 1979, they established fundamentalist Islam coupled with state control of the economy.

    Because traditional communism eliminates all religion, it is hard to see the influence that socialism has had on the Muslim world. I think what we are witnessing is the combination of a religion that is tolerant of murder under special circumstances and extreme with class warfare.

    It would also explain why the violence is worse in European countries, since Muslims living there would be exposed to pro-socialist messages constantly.

  • ||

    Why do threads here about crazy, murderous religious fanatics always turn into a sob-fest about how pure and good and sweet and innocent the non-murderous members of that religion are?

    This is probably the stupidest goddam fucking thread in the history of H&R. Inquisition? Crusades? Really? Loooool.

  • cynical||

    "I'm not sure how I feel about Islam alone being inherently more violent than any other religion. It seemed that Muslims were relatively peaceful prior to the latter part of the 20th century."

    How exactly do you think Islam became a global religion?

  • VikingMoose||

    apologies to Nooge. We should have been slob-festing on how witty, wise, and insightful you are!

    sorreh!

  • -||

    Who won?

  • sevo||

    nekoxgirl|12.13.10 @ 9:03AM|#
    "I'm not sure how I feel about Islam alone being inherently more violent than any other religion. It seemed that Muslims were relatively peaceful prior to the latter part of the 20th century."
    Seems that those who chose to bleeve in Islam span the spectrum from truly miserable assholes who are happy to slice off your head with a rusty knife if you wink at their sky-daddy all the way over to those who prefer a sharp knife. Along with one or two outliers who might even say 'don't do that'. But they're hard to find.

    "If my understanding of their rhetoric is correct, it seems as Islam has absorbed Marxist ideas, which has led to their hatred of the capitalist West. It's not so much Islamofascism as Islamosocialism that has turned the Middle East violent."
    The Mufti was more than willing to align with Hitler in WWII; we're not talking about sophisticated thinkers here. Whatever culture Islam can use as a villain for the failure of Islam is just fine, and the alternative will be embraced. Ignorance is Islam.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement