France

Extremist British Islamist Makes Excellent Case for an Unadulterated First Amendment, Free of Exceptions for "Hate Speech"

|

Anjem Choudary
BBC

Anjem Choudary, cable news' favorite radical Islamist booking, spared no time to use the deadly attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris, France, to push for more restrictions on freedom of expression in the United Kingdom. From Twitter:

If freedom of expression can be sacrificed for criminalising incitement & hatred, Why not for insulting the Prophet of Allah? #ParisShooting

— Anjem Choudary (@anjemchoudary) January 7, 2015

That's probably the most succinct and solid argument I've seen in favor of America's First Amendment and against attempts to carve out "hate speech" exceptions to it.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Masked Gunmen Attack Office of Satirical Newspaper in France, Opium Production Hits Record High in Afghanistan, French Fries Shortage in Venezuela

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.

  1. If Muslims in France really want people to stop insulting their prophet, all they have to do is hold a massive protest in the streets and have themselves declared a protected class. That way they can give up all this messy violent terrorism and use the power of democracy to decide who is allowed to say what.

    1. I hope your not comparing this to the protests against police misconduct in this country.

        1. Must I explain?

            1. no,think about it,and the civil rights protests,one thing is not like the other

              1. Both may be interpreted as reactions to perceived injustice. Rebuttal?

                1. One is against government abuse,the other their against free speech.

                  1. Well to be fair, most of the “civil rights” protesters here are trying to establish a truly protected class. Don’t you know? #BlackLivesMatter and if you declare that “#AllLivesMatter” you’d be a racist. That message seems pretty clear to me.

                    1. You mean like the NYPD? Thin blue line BOOYA.

                    2. I think blacks are already a protected class, no?

                      I don’t think many of the protesters have a very clear idea of what they are trying to accomplish. “Stop being racist” is not a serious policy proposal.

                    3. Victomhood is like political currency. What they’re doing is building up a savings account. Sure, they don’t know what they’re going to spend it on yet, but they’ll find something.

      1. Actually I’m comparing it to the French pasttime of protesting the government over every inconvenience in life.

        1. You have a point,if these two were French farmers?

  2. I have a better idea,let people in these countries own guns and defend themselves. France has strict gun control yet these Islamic trash somehow had AK-47.

    1. They probably bought them at a gun show in Slovakia with no background czech.

      1. Already the ghoulish groaners begin.

    2. Yeah, because in the US with virtually no gun control, there is almost no gun violence.

      1. Most of the gun violence is in places with the strictest gun laws you fucking pinhead. The law abiding people can’t defend themselves against the crimminals

        1. The idea that more guns equals less violence is complete bullshit and always will be no matter how much NRA propaganda eats away at your brain. More guns equals more gun deaths, period. Guns do not make people safer. This is a myth perpetrated by people who profit from the sale of guns. And there is no place with de facto strict gun control in this country. People are free to travel here.

          1. That’s it, don’t let any facts get in your way. Never change, ‘Tony’.

          2. Guns certainly make some people safer. And would definitely have made the people who got murdered in France safer.

            More guns equals more gun deaths, period.

            Which is why the murder rate has skyrocketed in recent years when people have been buying lots of new guns. Oh, wait, that didn’t happen.

          3. The idea that more guns equals less violence is complete bullshit and always will be no matter how much NRA propaganda eats away at your brain.

            True when you go from zero to many. However, once guns have been introduced having one becomes a deterrent to others using a gun against you. Therefore, more guns can equal fewer gun deaths. It is simple logic. Do you think raising taxes always raises government revenue?

            1. Do you think raising taxes always raises government revenue?

              It’s ‘Tony’, so yes, yes he does actually think that.

      2. Please show the relevant data that says that the areas with the highest gun-control ALSO have the lowest amount of gun violence.

        Smooches!!

        1. The US vs. any other western democracy.

          1. I guess an unsupported, and false, statement is what passes for ‘data’ in ‘Tony’-world. Nice fail.

          2. Is Mexico a democracy? How about Brazil?

            1. Oh, come on! Mexico and Brazil are non-White and therefore don’t count in Tony’s estimation.

          3. Strict gun control in Mexico and all throughout South America. Far more murders there as well. Quite often, WITH GUNS!!

          4. We all know that “western” is code for “White”, Tony.

  3. I think we’ve discovered that “insulting” Mohammed the Prophet is de facto incitement.

    1. We can’t stop now or the Muslims will never be desensitized to insults enough for them to qualify as anything more than barbarians.

  4. If freedom of expression can be sacrificed for criminalising incitement & hatred, Why not for insulting the Prophet of Allah?

    Because there’s my right not to be offended (important), and there’s your right not to be offended (unimportant). YW; HTH.

    1. What is this “if”? I thought criticizing Islam is already verboten in lots of Europa.

      1. What is this “if”? I thought criticizing Islam is already verboten in lots of Europa.

        It is. In the Netherlands if the Muslims don’t murder you the government will bring you up on charges of hate speech.

        1. Goddamn, at least he was found not guilty. Otherwise that story is pathetic.

          1. Nonetheless charges are able to be filed and a lower profile perp wouldn’t have gotten off.

  5. I think it’s pretty conclusive now that the Everybody Draw Mohammad people were right, and a necessary course of action (not the ONLY necessary course of action, but ONE of them) is for everyone who believes in free expression to deliberately outrage this taboo until these fetishists give the fuck up from exhaustion.

    I blame radical Islam for this, but who know who else I blame? Everyone who ever told these people that it was OK to demand “respect”.

    Nobody owes anybody respect. We owe each other non-violation of bodily integrity and property. That’s it. Nobody owes these animals or their fucking worthless lying-or-insane prophet any respect whatsoever.

    1. until these fetishists give the fuck up from exhaustion

      Got a timeframe for that, Fluffy?

      1. They’d probably burn themselves out in a century or so.

        -jcr

      2. Well, the ones who don’t give it up quickly will present themselves to be shot.

        Lots of you folks think I am some kind of nonviolence activist because I didn’t support the war(s).

        But I’m actually delighted to see violence, in some circumstances.

        If I could do something that would bring every one of these animals into the street and induce them to do something that would justify shooting them on the spot, I’d do it in a second. My big moral problem is with cracking down on the people who haven’t provided us with justification yet.

        Marching Nazi? Damn, can’t shoot him. Gotta support his right to march.

        Rioting Nazi? AWESOME, shoot that fucker dead right fucking now.

        1. Well, the ones who don’t give it up quickly will present themselves to be shot.

          *Some* will. Many will act more, um, rationally.

          1. Dip the bullets in pigs blood and then the irrational ones won’t line up either.

    2. Yes. The only way to stop this shit is to overwhelm them such that there is nothing they can do about it. They can’t kill everyone, though they would if they could.

      The other aspect of this is that these kinds of acts do nothing but dehumanize Muslims in the eyes of the world and create the seeds of the Muslims’ own destruction. If having Muslims in your society means living under the real threat of being murdered for saying something they find offensive, then people will solve that problem by no longer having Muslims in their society. Muslims are still minorities in most countries outside of the Middle East. France or the US or any other society where Muslims are the minority can if they get angry enough deal with their Muslim problem by deporting them or worse. Every time something like this happens, the world gets a step closer to that occurring. And every time some guilty self loathing Western Liberal makes excuses for this kind of thing and encourages more of it through appeasement, they harm the future prospects of Muslims by making a real war of civilizations, a war that would be bad for everyone but would be catastrophic for Western Muslims, more of a possibility.

      1. Allah and his followers were are just cancerous tumors.

        1. They would be on a sex offenders list today.

        2. Not all of them are. There are plenty of Muslims who are not murderous lunatics. The more these sorts of things happen, however, the more people will view all Muslims as cancerous tumors. How anyone who doesn’t hate Muslims with some kind of genocidal passion could think that is a good thing is beyond me.

          Muslims need to ask themselves,do they want their religion to be a part of the modern world or don’t they. If they do, then they need to take back their religion from these assholes. And also get over their victim complex and realize the world isn’t going to cowtow to their delicate sensibilities.

          1. Muslims need to ask themselves,do they want their religion to be a part of the modern world or don’t they.

            Some true believers, however, want to reshape the modern world to be part of their religion.

            1. Some do. And I wish them luck with that. My bet is on the modern world doing what it has to every other nitwit who stood in its way and murdering them. That is a pretty stupid fight to pick.

            2. So take the modern world back to the middle ages?

          2. As long as their educational standards remain strictly religious and their governments are authoritarian petro-tycoons, they won’t progress.

            1. Probably so. And if that is the case, they are going to wind up pariahs in most of the world. People are not going to put up with this forever.

              1. They would be that now if some didn’t have the luck to be born over large pools of oil.

            2. What mystifies me is how a major world religion of large past empires has managed to, in some portions, thoroughly become UN-curious scientifically, culturally, etc. When Euros were busy fighting petty feudal battles, Islamic scholars carried on much of the major mathematical, scientific, and astronomical discoveries.

              1. When Euros were busy fighting petty feudal battles, Islamic scholars carried on much of the major mathematical, scientific, and astronomical discoveries.

                Those “Islamic scholars” were not well loved by the contemporary religious leaders, they were pushing the envelope and their great works were owed in no small part to the relative weakness of Islamic enforcers of the time. None of what was achieved during the “Golden Age of Islam” is owed to Islam itself, but to the relative lack of it.

                1. See Doctor Whom’s citation of “itjihad” below. However, that’s more specifically geared towards “reasoned interpretations” vis-a-vis law and jurisprudence.

                  Many scholars cite hundreds of verses that not only encourage scientific inquiry, but make it nearly a spiritual duty.

                  The “lack of Islam”, as you say, is basically directly responsible for the extent of the Caliphates of the time. That’s sort of a weird contention.

              2. What mystifies me is how a major world religion of large past empires has managed to, in some portions, thoroughly become UN-curious scientifically, culturally, etc.

                Islam has a concept called the gates of ijtihad (reasoned interpretation of the scriptures, leading to reasoned interpretation of other matters). When the gates of ijtihad were open, the Islamic world had what everyone outside of China acknowledges as the world’s most advanced civilization. With the closing of the gates of ijtihad, that civilization eventually faded.

          3. Those are the benign tumors. Doesn’t mean they are harmless, just not actively attacking at the moment.

            1. Well I guess I should have shot that lady with the head scarf walking into work with me this morning. She is clearly a ticking time bomb.

              1. Just rape her and her family will kill her for you. Respect the culture!

                1. I want to give you a disapproving glare but the smirk keeps getting in the way.

              2. I know, Florida Man, it’s amazing we’re still alive given the opportunities our co-workers have had over the years.

                Also – where’d all these trolls come from?

    3. Everyone who ever told these people that it was OK to demand “respect”.

      Yes. And everybody who lived in denial that Islam as a religion has a real problem. It is not a religion of peace. No, not every Muslim is a crazy fuck wanting to shoot anyone that doesn’t bow down in respect to him. The fact that not all or even most Muslims are not like that doesn’t mean Islam doesn’t have a problem.

      They would never act like this when dealing with a Western political movement or religion. If radical Christians or pro states rights Republicans were threatening to behead anyone who disrespected them and carrying through the the threat periodically, none of the assholes who claim Islam is a religion of peace would be making excuses or claiming that Christianity or the states rights movement were really peaceful. They would be looking to everyone in those movements and asking them how in the hell have they fostered an environment where people in your movement think this sort of behavior is okay.

      1. They would be looking to everyone in those movements and asking them how in the hell have they fostered an environment where people in your movement think this sort of behavior is okay.

        They’d actually be burning them alive in their homes along with their wives and children.

        1. Yes they would. And make no mistake, that is what is going to happen to Muslims if this shit doesn’t stop. The self loathing elite won’t be able to control the population forever. They may want to die in payment for the evil white man’s sins, but no one else does. At some point, the population in places like France and Germany and the US will tell their self loathing elites to fuck off and take matters into their own hands.

          1. Government induced multiculturalism breeds genocide, murder and general injustice. I have no doubt that the demographic shifts currently taking place in Europe, will breed intractable and tragic problems for everyone in about 100 years.

      2. The KKK claimed the Bible justified their actions.

        By your logic, Christianity created the KKK.

        1. In some ways it did. To the extent that Christian ministers used the bible to preach racial supremacy, the KKK is a stain on Christianity. And certainly any Christian who didn’t stand up and help put a stop to the KKK and put a stop to using the bible as justification for white supremacy and using their ideology as an excuse for violence deserves some blame for what the KKK did.

          If Muslims don’t want to be blamed for this and don’t want it to be seen as a reflection of their religion, then stand up and do something about it and run these people out of their communities. If they are unwilling to do that, then they deserve to be associated with them.

          1. I see. So in the Klan’s heyday, all Christians were to blame for their actions.

            1. Any Christian who lived in the South or places where the Klan operated and didn’t stand up and say something, absolutely was responsible. Were the people in Germany who stood around with their thumbs up their asses and while the Nazis took over and murdered millions blameless? Absolutely not. And neither were the Southern Whites who didn’t stand up to the KKK or the Muslims in France who don’t stand up to these people.

              1. I think you’re way off base here. Most people just want to live their lives and mind their own business. Even Muslims. You are blaming the many for the actions of the few. Why not start punishing children for the sins of their father?

                1. . Most people just want to live their lives and mind their own business.

                  Sure they do. And sometimes life sucks and keeps you from doing that. And you are not punishing people for other people’s sins. You are saying it is wrong for people to acquiesce to murder and evil being committed in their presence because it doesn’t effect them.

                  Think about what you are saying here sarcasmic. When the SS shows up to murder the Jews next door, you are saying the people who stood around and did nothing “because it wasn’t their business” were totally without blame. That is bullshit and you know it.

                  These radicals operate in the Muslim communities of France and other places and are able to get converts and do these sorts of things because the community at large won’t stand up and do something. And it doesn’t matter whether you think it is fair or not. It is reality. If Muslims continue to allow these things to happen in their name, people are going to just eliminate Muslims from their society at some point. So it is the other Muslims’ business whether they like it or it is fair or not.

                  1. When the SS shows up to murder the Jews next door, you are saying the people who stood around and did nothing “because it wasn’t their business” were totally without blame. That is bullshit and you know it.

                    The next time a SWAT team raids some peaceful drug users in your neighborhood, I will hold you responsible.

                    1. Let’s quote accurately:

                      Any Christian who lived in the South or places where the Klan operated and didn’t stand up and say something, absolutely was responsible.

                      OK, so it’s perfectly acceptable to hold Rs and Ds responsible (other than the odd Gary Johnson). But we as libertarians DO stand up and say something. It is unreasonable (drink) to expect that we will take up arms to prevent it, but damn straight we’ll protest, publicize, shame, and do everything within our power to change that bullshit.

                    2. The next time a SWAT team raids some peaceful drug users in your neighborhood, I will hold you responsible.

                      Thanks you, sarc. John is losing his mind here.

                  2. How much should an ordinary German have done in order that they not be held responsible for the crimes of the Nazis? Having voted and spoke out against the Nazis? Protested? Taken up arms?

                    It’s one thing to say it’s a morally good thing to stand up to evil, but I don’t think a person whose only sin is not stopping an evil is therefore responsible for the evil. The responsibility is wholly on the perpetrator.

                  3. Any Christian who lived in the South or places where the Klan operated and didn’t stand up and say something, absolutely was responsible.

                    Think about what you are saying here sarcasmic. When the SS shows up to murder the Jews next door, you are saying the people who stood around and did nothing “because it wasn’t their business” were totally without blame. That is bullshit and you know it.

                    It’s not that simple. It’s not like a lone criminal committing crimes next door, it’s a violent irrational mob populated by a good sized chunk of your community with virtually all the rest sympathizing in some areas. I don’t think a person is at fault for the murder because they didn’t fruitlessly offer themselves and their family to the violence of the mob.

                    I certainly believe the Muslim community in total, shares the blame for the actions of their more violent elements. But their crime is more about active support not a blind eye.

                    I wish I could find a link to the article but a while back Reason published some statistics on the opinion polling of Muslims living in the West and it showed that a shockingly large percentage of them are okay with terrorism, blasphemy laws, destruction of the west, honor killings et cetera… And these are western Muslims, selected by pollsters for being “moderate”.

                    1. I don’t think a person is at fault for the murder because they didn’t fruitlessly offer themselves and their family to the violence of the mob.

                      John most certainly does. Whenever a SWAT team raids a home full of innocent people and kills their dog, John is to blame for not stopping it. By his own argument it’s all his fault.

                    2. Any Christian who lived in the South or places where the Klan operated and didn’t stand up and say something, absolutely was responsible.

                      As far as I can tell, John has done exactly that. So have you. So have I.

                  4. That’s some nice collective guilt there John. (Of course I realize that by and large, people generally will lay all the blame at all Muslims, or Southerners with the KKK.)

                    1. Designate,

                      If you lived in the South and didn’t do anything or stand up, then yes, you deserve blame for that. That sucks for you, but that is life. That is why evil sucks so bad, it not only harms people it places the burden on good people to stand up to it.

              2. Why would I be morally responsible for what some awful person does just because the motivation he claims is a movement or philosophy I adhere too but which I don’t think condones this behavior? That’s all on him.

                1. Because the “philosophy” does condone and even require that behavior. The fact that you spread lies (knowingly or not) that the ideology is something other than the delusional murderous garbage that it is, that puts some blame in your pocket.

                  What you would have yourself believe about the intentions of Islam is irrelevant. What Islam actually is, should be the issue. A cursory glance at the pages of the Koran or Hadiths will reveal that the book is dripping with blood.

          2. John, I think you make some good points as an empirical matter, but your comment about “any Christian who didn’t stand up and help put a stop to the KKK and put a stop to using the bible as justification for white supremacy and using their ideology as an excuse for violence deserves some blame for what the KKK did” seems to embody a collectivist morality.

            1. No it doesn’t. It embodies moral duty. If you stand aside and let evil be done in front of you and do nothing because it doesn’t effect you, you are not blameless for the resulting evil.

              Is is wrong to say the Germans who sat silently while the Nazis committed their crimes bear some moral blame for what happened? Hell no. And no one including you would ever bat an eye when someone says that. You only get your back up here because there has developed this horse shit idea that Muslims somehow can’t be held to the same standards actual human beings are held to.

              1. I don’t think Muslims, or any other member of any group, are their brother’s keepers. As long as a Muslim is not aiding or abetting or giving legitimacy to these murderers who just happen to invoke his religion as their motivation I don’t see how he is in any way to blame. If there is any affirmative duty to act to combat these people it’s not specially pronounced for the Muslim just because the awful people invoke his religion.

                1. I don’t think Muslims, or any other member of any group, are their brother’s keepers.

                  Were the Germans’ their brothers’ keepers? Hell, some German living in Frankfurt isn’t the keeper of what the SS is doing in Russia is he?

                  Yes, they are. They are in the sense that they own their religion and have a responsibility to stand up and make sure that people who are committing murder in its name are not welcome in their communities and the people who preach such are run out of their Mosques.

                  Think about it Bo. If some preacher in South Carolina were preaching racial genocide and five members of the church went out and murdered a bunch of black people, you don’t think the people who went to that church and sat there and did nothing while the minister was advocating genocide are not guilty of a moral failure? You don’t think the people who go to that church would have a right to be surprised and angry when the rest of the country branded them racist killers? Of course not and you would never say otherwise. You only do so now because you PC instincts just can’t let you hold Muslims to the same standard.

                  1. I am holding Muslims to the same standard John. I don’t think, for example, conservatives have some special need to speak out when some lunatic professing conservative beliefs goes on a shooting spree. Likewise with Muslims.

                    1. If there were as many lunatics expressing conservative beliefs killing people as there are Muslims doing so, absolutely they would. You mean to tell me that if a bunch of conservatives murdered 11 people at the office of The New Republic, you wouldn’t expect every conservative in the country to actively condemn the act and take measures to ensure whatever nutso strain of their ideology that inspired these people was cast out of their movement? Of course you would and you know it.

                    2. I mean to tell you that John. I wouldn’t hold any other conservative responsible in any way unless they aided, abetted or tried to put some kind of legitimacy on the act.

                    3. I mean to tell you that John. I wouldn’t hold any other conservative responsible in any way unless they aided, abetted or tried to put some kind of legitimacy on the act.

                      You do this on a daily basis. Your fixation in life is battling the evil SoConz.

                    4. What FUQ said Bo. You hold SOCONS collectively responsible for things every day in ways that when it comes to Muslims you now say you can’t do.

                      The only difference is that it is in your mind okay to blame SOCONs but somehow not okay to blame Muslims for the actions of people within their movements.

                      Bring up the subject of SOCONS and this board is collectivist as hell. Bring up Muslims and all of the sudden we can’t have any collective shame here. It is horse shit.

                      And the day SOCONs start murdering people, is the day I and everyone else of good conscience needs to be standing up and calling out the movement for what it had become.

                    5. I am holding Muslims to the same standard John. I don’t think, for example, conservatives have some special need to speak out when some lunatic professing conservative beliefs goes on a shooting spree. Likewise with Muslims.

                      The frequency and severity of “conservative killers” is not even in the same league with Islam’s murderous adherents. Every fucking society in which a sizable number of Muslims exist, they are the source of a seemingly limitless amount of transgressions.

              2. No it doesn’t. It embodies moral duty. If you stand aside and let evil be done in front of you and do nothing because it doesn’t effect you, you are not blameless for the resulting evil.

                This also could be said about the War on Drugs?.

                1. This also could be said about the War on Drugs?.

                  Yep. And as a government employee, John is even more responsible than the rest of us. Because he has not stood up and stopped the War on Drugs? being waged by his employer, then he is totally to blame for all the evil that has resulted from it.

                  1. Yep. And as a government employee, John is even more responsible than the rest of us.

                    Sure I am. I bear more responsibility than you do. I would never deny that. You not making any point I don’t already know and admit sarcasmic. Why do you think doing so is clever or somehow destructive to my point?

                    1. Why do you think doing so is clever or somehow destructive to my point?

                      I’m just pointing out that you are no different than the Muslims who you claim are terrible people for not stopping terrorism. If they are terrible people, then by your argument you are a just as bad.

                    2. We all have are moral failures sarcasmic. If you want to hold me responsible for the moral failures of our government, have at it. But doing that doesn’t change the moral failures of Muslims who have done nothing as their religion has become increasingly violent and intolerant.

                      And again, you would think nothing of holding say Occupy Wall Street people responsible for violence done in their name or calling them out for doing nothing as they watched their leaders preach violence. Yet, you can’t seem to do that here.

                2. It certainly is true though to a lesser extent. Anyone who doesn’t stand up and say the war on drugs is wrong and actively try to convince people that it is, is guilty of a moral failure. The war on drugs while evil is not so evil that it justifies armed resistance to the government. But it certainly is evil enough to require any moral person to publicly and consistently object to it and refuse to play a part in it. It is why I wouldn’t want to become a prosecutor or go work directly for a federal law enforcement agency, even though in many ways I would enjoy the job. I can’t morally be a part of it

                  1. The war on drugs while evil is not so evil that it justifies armed resistance to the government.

                    Not sure about that.

              3. Is is wrong to say the Germans who sat silently while the Nazis committed their crimes bear some moral blame for what happened? Hell no. And no one including you would ever bat an eye when someone says that. You only get your back up here because there has developed this horse shit idea that Muslims somehow can’t be held to the same standards actual human beings are held to.

                That sounds very much like Al Queda’s excuse as to why it’s OK to kill U.S. citizens. That by paying taxes and electing presidents who authorized material and personell assistance to the Egyptian govt that was used in repression and torture, we were morally culpable and deserved whatever we got from our ‘victims’.

                If you are making a descriptive statement ie. that most people will react in a collectivist way to blame moslems for the actions of these terrorists, I agree with you.

                If your are making a normative statement ie. that moslems are to blame for not suppressing these terrorists, I strongly disagree with you.

                1. AT some point Tarran, Muslims in general do bear some of the blame. Think of the strain of Protestantism that was used to justify white supremacy. What if other Christians had never said a word about that. What if they had continued to stand by silently and allow those ideas to be considered a legitimate strain of the religion? How could you not at some point blame the other Christians for that vile strain’s continued existence? Non Christans can’t reform Christianity. Only Christians can do that. And they damn sure would be to blame if they accepted that kind of thinking.

                  The same thing is happening here. The French Muslim communities have allowed the radicals to infiltrate their Mosques and their communities and this is the result. Moreover, had the French government stepped in to stop it, the Muslims themselves would have thrown a fit and played the victim card saying the government is oppressing them. So how exactly do they not bear some responsibility for what is going on? Moreover, if they are unwilling to do something about it, what choice do non Muslim countries have but to just expel all of them? How do you know who is radical and dangerous and who isn’t.

                  1. You know who else assigned collective blame for the actions of a few?

                    1. +2 Interceptions

                    2. Lions fans?

                  2. Non Christans can’t reform Christianity. Only Christians can do that.

                    Can Catholics reform Seventh Day Adventists? Can Anabaptists fix papism?

                    Can the pope fix judaism? Shoudl the pope fix islam? Where in the group of “the people of the book” do you draw the line?

                    Should gun owners be responsible for Adam Lanza and Mumia?

                    Am *I* to blame for Haymarket?

                    1. Can Catholics reform Seventh Day Adventists? Can Anabaptists fix papism?

                      Sure they can. They can make those sects so marginal that no one wants to join them. They can make sure that they never give such beliefs any sort of credence.

                      Understand what is happening here. There are mosques all over the Western World that preach vile horrible things. And millions of Muslims go to them and never say a word or stand up and put a stop to it.

                      You act like every Mosque is like the local Unitarian Church and then outside somewhere there are these radicals. That is not what is going on. The radicals run the Mosques. The asshole at the top of this post is an Imam at the largest and most attended Mosque in London.

                      You assume that just because most Muslims are not personally blowing shit up, the majority of them must not think the same way as the ones who do. And that is not what is going on. Go look at the polls, the majority of Muslims in Britain think there should be Sharia law. There are entire suburbs in France where women can’t walk around without being escorted by a man and wearing a headscarf without risking being raped.

                      Why do you just automatically assume every Western Muslim fits your nice cudely stereotype?

                    2. You act like every Mosque is like the local Unitarian Church and then outside somewhere there are these radicals. T

                      I don’t actually. See my post below.

                    3. I don’t think you do. But you see my point. The views of Muslims in Europe and a few in the US speak for themselves. They are not as a group friends of tolerance or freedom. It is just reality.

                  3. Think of the strain of Protestantism that was used to justify white supremacy.

                    I’m no Christian and have no fondness for Christianity, but if you want to talk about what Protestant Christianity did during that time period you could start with how it was the enclosure within which the abolitionist movement was housed and from where legal slavery was wiped from the Earth.

                    1. Yeah, Free Society, Protestantism drove the abolitionist movement. And eventually it ran white supremacy out of Christianity as a whole. If you look hard enough, you can find Christian white supremacy still preached in this country. But it is done in completely marginalized groups. As recently as 60 years ago, it was preached in nearly every white church in the deep South.

                      Protestantism deserves credit for running those beliefs out of its religion. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there or that they didn’t have a duty to do what they did.

                    2. I don’t think ‘white supremacy’ was a religious phenomenon and I don’t say that as a defense of religion. I think the proponents of ‘white supremeacy’ just happened to be Christians looking for any justification for their policy preferences that they can get their hands on.

                      With Muslims it’s different. Their intractable ignorance and aggression is rooted in their faith.

                    3. FS,

                      It was very much a religious phenomena, though not completely one. The Old South very much used religion as a justification for its views.

                    4. used religion as a justification for its views

                      After the fact. If Christian doctrines found in the Bible are broadly supportive of “white supremacy” (which is odd for a book written by mostly Hebrews) then we should see similar viewpoints from Churches in Africa and elsewhere. In the Old South, Christianity was used as a justification for moral transgressions. In the Islamic world, moral transgressions are mandated by articles of faith, much more than you find in the Bible.

                      I can point out plenty of mandated moral transgressions in the Bible (more in the Old Testament) but it’s nothing compared to the Koran and Hadiths.

        2. To a certain extent Christianity “did” create the KKK. The KKK definitely espouses a certain brand of hardcore Protestantism.

          Fortunately, there are other white Christians that espouse more of the Enlightenment values and are willing to violently put down the KKK types if necessary.

          It is this second group that seems to be entirely absent in the Moslem world

          1. Entirely absent? That seems a bit much.

            1. Entirely absent? That seems a bit much.

              Is it? I’ve not seen a scrap of evidence for that. I dare say that there’s not single Islamic country (with secular government or not) on the face of the planet where one can openly criticize Islam, Muhammed or the Koran without that facing a very real possibility of execution, imprisonment and murder.

            2. Not really. Sure there are plenty of Muslims going about their lives peacefully, many among us in the USA. However, those are not the ones participating in the media, or politics. Those who are part of moderate Muslim groups are nearly all, secretly or overtly, supporting the supposed radicals through their money or speech, to some degree or other. No matter the orginization, there are always going to be those that are affiliated, who don’t really know, or care much for the nitty gritty, and just belong due to tradition, family ties, or some other reason. One other possible reason being that to publicly claim rejection of Islam for someone raised Muslim comes with a sentence of death.

              The Middle Easterners who I’ve seen boldly speaking out against the radicals, have all been seriously risking death, by both speaking out, and publicizing their rejection of Islam.

              1. The Middle Easterners who I’ve seen boldly speaking out against the radicals, have all been seriously risking death, by both speaking out, and publicizing their rejection of Islam.

                But they are criticizing radicals’ reading of Islam, not Islam. Because if they did disavow Islam as a whole, it wouldn’t just be those “radicals” that would come after them, but even the frail old woman living across the street would call for their death. That’s normality in their society.

          2. yes it did. And if Christians had said nothing and allowed that strain of Christianity to continue to be considered legitimate, they would rightly bear some moral responsibility for that. And no one would have a problem with saying that.

        3. I don’t recall ever reading that.

          The KKK didn’t start out as religious at all. The later additions of overt religion co-incide with the progressive evangelicals getting involved.

          Christianity was grafted onto the KKK, not the other way around.

      3. No, not every Muslim is a crazy fuck wanting to shoot anyone that doesn’t bow down in respect to him. The fact that not all or even most Muslims are not like that doesn’t mean Islam doesn’t have a problem.

        You realize this is the exact same argument that the Islamists use to recruit people for terrorist attacks against innocent Westerners? That our governments’ undeniably bad behavior in the Middle East justifies attacks against civilians who had nothing to do with it other than identifying as American?

        If radical Christians or pro states rights Republicans were threatening to behead anyone who disrespected them and carrying through the the threat periodically, none of the assholes who claim Islam is a religion of peace would be making excuses or claiming that Christianity or the states rights movement were really peaceful.

        Is anyone claiming that ISIS or Al Qaeda or these dudes in the shooting today are peaceful? Nice strawman.

        Your hypothetical is not a hypothetical, by the way. Some Christians behaved that way throughout the history of Christendom. Amazingly, we’re able to distinguish between bad Christians and good Christians. I would hope that you’re capable of making the same distinction among followers of other religions.

        1. You realize this is the exact same argument that the Islamists use to recruit people for terrorist attacks against innocent Westerners? That our governments’ undeniably bad behavior in the Middle East justifies attacks against civilians who had nothing to do with it other than identifying as American?

          This.

        2. You realize this is the exact same argument that the Islamists use to recruit people for terrorist attacks against innocent Westerners? That our governments’ undeniably bad behavior in the Middle East justifies attacks against civilians who had nothing to do with it other than identifying as American?

          In a sense they are right. The US is actively hostile to their ideology. And the reason it is is that the American public and society is hostile to them. Yes, I am very much their enemy. And really so is all of American society. Our society as a whole is an enormous threat to them. The problem is not that I am their enemy, I am. The problem is their ideology is such that everyone should be their enemy,

          Is anyone claiming that ISIS or Al Qaeda or these dudes in the shooting today are peaceful? Nice strawman.

          Nice projection you half wit. You are the one giving the strawman. Are ISIS all of Islam? No. And no one is claiming that. But are they Islamic? Absolutely. Islam has a problem not because every strain of it is violent. It has a problem because significant parts of it and significant numbers of Muslims are violent. So, no it is not a “religion of peace”. If it were, there wouldn’t be strains of it that are so violent. Saying that it is a religion of peace is just denying that it has a violence problem. It doesn’t have to be all violent for the religion to have a problem.

          1. The Crusades is utter historic nonsense as a justification for anything. The Crusades were a response to Muslim imperialism. All of the Middle East was once Christian until it was forcibly converted to Islam. That doesn’t matter today. It was 1,200 years ago. But neither do the Crusades. The Muslims tried to take over the world and and did so from Spain all the way to India and forcibly convert the entire population. So fuck off with your idiotic ahistorical victimhood shit.

            1. The Crusades is utter historic nonsense as a justification for anything. The Crusades were a response to Muslim imperialism.

              Many would argue that Muslim terrorism is a response to Western imperialism.

              1. And they would be morons. The biggest victims of Muslim terrorism is other Muslims. If it were about western imperialism, they wouldn’t be the case.

                And moreover, to say that it is the result of Western Imperialism is to deny Muslims their moral agency and humanity. They are not animals who act on feral instinct. The middle east is not a real hornets nest. Muslims are responsible for Muslim terrorism.

                Lastly, the Muslims most prone to terror are middle class and well of Muslims, people who are the least victims of anything.

                1. Obviously all terrorism isn’t a response to Western imerialism or whatever you want to call it. But it is equally silly to say it has nothing to do with it.

                  That doesn’t mean in any way that Muslim terrorists and those who support them are not responsible for their own actions. Everyone is always responsible for their own actions.

              2. “Many would argue that Muslim terrorism is a response to Western imperialism.”

                That explains why Pakistani trained Muslim gunmen are always attacking Hindu Indian civilians. Because of Christian imperialism.

              3. I am not sure how blowing up a mosque in Samarra fights Western imperialism? Or throwing acid in the face of women teachers in Kabul. Or shooting up a mall in Nairobi or a hotel in Mumbai.

                1. I am not sure how blowing up a mosque in Samarra fights Western imperialism? Or throwing acid in the face of women teachers in Kabul. Or shooting up a mall in Nairobi or a hotel in Mumbai.

                  Fucking A right.

                2. I am not sure how blowing up a mosque in Samarra fights Western imperialism? Or throwing acid in the face of women teachers in Kabul. Or shooting up a mall in Nairobi or a hotel in Mumbai.

                  Well, who said they were acting rationally or effectively? The fact that little of what they do is at all effective in fighting perceived western imperialism doesn’t mean that it isn’t at least part of their motivation. Aren’t the attacks on teachers a reaction to the perceived introduction of western educational values?

              4. Many would argue that Muslim terrorism is a response to Western imperialism.

                If the Muslims could get their shit together and just engage in commerce and peace within their societies and the rest of the world, they wouldn’t have a lick of complaint about “western imperialism”. Most of the world was dominated by European powers for several centuries, yet it’s only the Muslim societies using that as a prerequisite to demand world domination and the staggering amount of violence they visit upon the world.

                1. “Most of the world was dominated by European powers for several centuries, yet it’s only the Muslim societies using that as a prerequisite to demand world domination and the staggering amount of violence they visit upon the world.”

                  Yeah, it sure is odd that Singapore and Hong Kong were British colonies for longer than any Muslim area, but those parts of the world are prosperous, modern, well-educated, and successful.

                  Poland was also oppressed by an imperial power much more recently, but the Polish don’t seem to think it’s necessary to carry out suicide bombings in Moscow as recompense.

            2. All of the Middle East was once Christian until it was forcibly converted to Islam.

              Citation needed, especially for “All” claim.

              Also, one of the hallmarks of Moorish Spain was precisely the fact that forcible conversion was not really a thing. Subsequent Ottoman Caliphates also made conversion something of a “meh” proposition if you were “of the book” (and, of course, you paid the tax). I believe that forcible conversions were only widespread in a few areas (mostly where there were pagans).

              Jews may have been run out of Mecca and Medina, but they were not forced to convert, by and large, nor were the Christians and Jews of what were to become Syria, Lebanon, and southern Turkey.

              1. Yes, all of it. Timon. Christianity was universal throughout the entire Roman Empire. And the Roman Empire spanned from Central Iraq all the way to Morocco.

                And while the Arabian Peninsula was not entirely Christian, it contained large Christian populations. Millions of Christians were conquered and forcibly converted to Islam. If you don’t believe me, go read a history book sometime,

                And Muslim Spain is a very small exception for a very short time. Anyone who was not a Muslim was subject to paying higher taxes, fewer civil rights, and could be enslaved. Were they told to convert or die? Not in most cases. But to call what happened anything but forcible conversion is to deny the ordinary meaning of the term.

                1. The Roman Empire itself was a mix of Christian and pagan throughout.

                  The Arabian Peninsula is a rather large-ish portion of the “Middle East”, no? In fact, very, very little of it was Christian. It was more Jewish along the Red Sea and very, very pagan in the interior. Iran is part of the Middle East, right? The former Persian lands had a big mix of Zoroastrians, pagans, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.

                  Large-scale forcible conversion would preclude the existence of large pockets of Christians and Jews in Muslim lands. We know that these pockets existed, even in what is now the Levant, Mesopotamia, the Aegean coast, and up through Thrace, all the way up to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

                  The wars initially fought around the Red Sea coast that Mohammed participated in resulted in some forced conversion, and ultimately chased the Jews out of the area.

                2. But places like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan had quite large Christian minorities until shit got ugly in the 20th century.

                  1. Yes? That sort of goes to my point. Those large Christian minorities (and Jewish ones – Istanbul used to have a big population, as did Ottoman Salonica (which took in a huge number of the Jews expelled by Catholic Spain after the Alhambra Decree) – wouldn’t have existed had there been huge amounts of forced conversion among those already believing in an Abrahamic religion.

              2. Citation needed, especially for “All” claim.

                Does he really need to cite the fact that the Middle East was historically predominantly Christian? Because if he does, then you may need to do a bit more reading before you offer your thoughts.

                1. If you define “Middle East” as “The Holy Land and some of Mesopotamia”.

                  1. …John would be correct.

                    (Preview…)

                  2. If I define the Middle East as all but the Arabian Peninsula and a good chunk of that too, then yes, I am correct.

                    All of modern day Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt and the rest of North Africa was entirely Christian in the 7th Century. How the hell is that not the Middle East?

                    1. Not entirely. There were tons of Jews about. And some Zoroastrians.

                    2. No Jews or pagans, eh? And “a good chunk of the AP” means the Red Sea coast, full stop?

                      Persia is not included? Anatolia?

                    3. Persia is not included? Anatolia?

                      Persia was largely Zoroastrian and had large Christian communities. Anatolia was most assuredly Christian until the Turks arrived. It was the heart of the the Eastern Roman Empire lest you forget.

                    4. Not all of Anatolia. Western Anatolia, sure.

                      And I think I already made the point that Persia was Zoroastrian, among others. Lots of Jews, too.

                    5. You split that hair like a pro. Good job. Your point nonetheless, does not stand.

                    6. My point that “all” of the “Middle East” was not “entirely” Christian?

                      Yeah, it pretty much does stand.

                      John is often given to these flights of silly absolutism, at which point he usually doubles down when he’s asked to back it up. It happens a lot when it comes to dusky Musselmen-types in particular.

                      That said, he’s a far sight more knowledgeable, learned, and less bigoted than you appear to be. And a better arguer. He doesn’t need you to carry his water.

                      Now, I will absolutely give you the “usury” point. There were similar prohibitions on it in Christianity (and possibly Judaism), but they’ve been dropped. I think it’s holding the culture back, though huge parts of the Muslim world trade spectacularly well with everyone else without full allowance of usury.

                      That said, Islamic banking has some pretty sneaky ways of getting around it that manage to not violate the Koran or Hadiths.

                    7. So fucking what Timon. My general point that Muslims conquered huge areas that were once Christian and over time forcibly converted them. Sorry but “well not the entire middle east” doesn’t dispute that. It just engages and pettifoggery and changing the subject.

                      It is unsurprising that Tonio, the most dishonest and bad faith arguer on this board, finds your argument compelling.

                    8. Holy crap, John! Thanks for the title! How did I get it so easily and with relatively little participation?

                      I think you need to be less of an emotional asshole when it comes to these issues, because you often bring a lot of decent points from the right. It’s to your detriment to act this way.

                      Anyway, if you recall, the argument was that “the entire Middle East was Christian and was forcibly converted”. That’s a very absolutist argument that needs to be drilled down into. For whatever reason, you take personal offense to being asked to substantiate.

                    9. Well let’s split more hairs Timon. The Brits define Middle East differently than in the US so therefore John is sooperdooper wrong great job! But of course we both know what he was referring to and we both know he’s not wrong. It’s true shittbaggery to pretend that his argument hangs on the precise meaning of ‘middle east’ when in fact that’s entirely irrelevant to the point that the Crusades didn’t just happen out of nowhere.

                      Or is it you contention that the Crusades targeted “western Anatolia”, Persia and beyond?

                    10. What the hell are you on about (stealthy Britishism, because you think I’m one, maybe, for some reason?)?

                      He said “the entire Middle East”. A reasonable person, sitting in actual America, would include an awful lot more than “The Holy Land and exactly what makes John on Hit & Run correct”.

                    11. What the hell are you on about (stealthy Britishism, because you think I’m one, maybe, for some reason?)?

                      You’re making a big stink about how he said “middle east” as if his rebuttal of your argument hangs on that point, it doesn’t. The term itself refers to a general area, and the term is even defined differently in different English speaking countries.

                      The point is, that the lands targeted by the crusades, were in fact Christian lands prior to Islamic conquest of those territories. And you are claiming that’s wrong because of some semantic bullshit that’s irrelevant to the argument he made.

                    12. Actually, here’s his post again. I’ll bold the stuff I was responding to. His points about the Crusades being a poor justifcation is solid.

                      The Crusades is utter historic nonsense as a justification for anything. The Crusades were a response to Muslim imperialism. All of the Middle East was once Christian until it was forcibly converted to Islam. That doesn’t matter today. It was 1,200 years ago. But neither do the Crusades. The Muslims tried to take over the world and and did so from Spain all the way to India and forcibly convert the entire population. So fuck off with your idiotic ahistorical victimhood shit.

                      Absolutist BS, and curiously dismissive of the huge areas of both Christian and Jewish populations throughout Muslim-dominated lands.

                    13. The Crusades were a response to Muslim imperialism

                      You should have made that part in bold because it’s the operative text. He was rebutting your argument that the Crusades justify Islamic antipathy towards the west. A rebuttal that you’ve completely ignored in favor of semantics about what exactly the confines of “the middle east” are.

                    14. I never made that argument. squibload didn’t really even do this. I was merely responding positively to his response to John’s use of an argument that, worded differently, doesn’t differ much from the argument these assholes use to justify their attacks on the West.

                      It was a more nuanced argument than “THE CRUSADEZ CAUSED ALL BAD!!!!”

                    15. In fact, squibload’s argument specifically mentions the modern day and modern America government meddling and really goes nowhere near bringing up the Crusades.

                2. Why yes, FS, yes he does. Just as we don’t let Tony get away with using “because I say so” as a cite, we don’t let others do that, either.

                  1. Why yes, FS, yes he does. Just as we don’t let Tony get away with using “because I say so” as a cite, we don’t let others do that, either.

                    Citations typically aren’t required for claims that are widely known to be accurate. I didn’t think that the knowledge of the Middle East’s Christian past was so vague and insurmountable that he would have to provide citations. It’s such common knowledge it’s shocking that you would ask for it. But I’ll remember that next time you say something like “Communism in the USSR…” I’ll be sure to require a citation that the USSR actually existed and no less than 3 reputable sources saying that it was a vaguely communist entity. I mean, we can’t just take patently obvious statements at face value.

              3. It was christian, jewish and pagan.

                There was no Islam at the time. Islam spread–at least according to the Quran–by the sword.

                So the ‘cite’ is the Quran, which clearly references the Christian/Jewish and pagan world the dar al-Islam attacked.

        3. “Your hypothetical is not a hypothetical, by the way. Some Christians behaved that way throughout the history of Christendom. Amazingly, we’re able to distinguish between bad Christians and good Christians.”

          There it is! The ‘BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CRUSADES!’ argument that I’ve come to know and love so much.

          Here’s the thing: When Christians were burning witches, crucifying their enemies, and decapitating Muslim prisoners in the Middle East, Christianity sure as shit was a violent, horrible religion doing horrible things. The problem is, they stopped doing that stuff a couple hundred years ago.

          The most extreme Christians in America are less extreme than than a huge percentage of European Muslims. The fact that Richard the Lionheart cut up a bunch of Muslim prisoners outside the gates of Acre 1000 years ago isn’t very relevant to today.

          1. Yeah, Muslims need to do like Christians did and get over their aversion to lending money with interest, get a proper economy going and do whatever the Muslim equivalent of going to church only on Easter and Christmas is.

            1. get a proper economy going and do whatever the Muslim equivalent of going to church only on Easter and Christmas is.

              When I was in Istanbul and heard the calls to prayer, I always thought “How do they get anything done?”

              1. Did you notice anyone actually paying attention to the calls? I spent lots of the last couple of years in various parts of Turkey.

                The more rural you get, the more likely people are to pull out the rugs, but they very, very rarely do it in public view. The young professional class pretty much ignores each call, just about every day, with some exception.

        4. You realize this is the exact same argument that the Islamists use to recruit people for terrorist attacks against innocent Westerners? That our governments’ undeniably bad behavior in the Middle East justifies attacks against civilians who had nothing to do with it other than identifying as American?

          So what? Islam does have a problem. And the US does have a problem. We both have problems. And it’s wrong to attack the non-violent of either group.

          1. The problems are in different ballparks. Criticize US history, leaders and culture and you don’t get murdered. Criticize Islamic history, figures and culture and you do get murdered. That would be a good place to start with your comparison.

      4. No, not every Muslim is a crazy fuck wanting to shoot anyone that doesn’t bow down in respect to him.

        But if asked by a pollster, they will say that they DO want to kill anyone who insults Mohamed, because there is intense peer pressure to say this. If you don’t say that you would kill someone for insulting Islam, then you might be the target.

    4. Nobody owes anybody respect. We owe each other non-violation of bodily integrity and property. That’s it.

      There are different levels of obligation. At a legal level, I would agree with your statement. At a moral one, no way.

      You cannot have a free society without the vast majority of the people in it being moral in their interpersonal interactions.

      1. At a moral one, no way.

        That is precisely what our moral obligations are. You don’t people positive action, you owe them only negative action. Otherwise the default state of man is that of a slave.

        You cannot have a free society without the vast majority of the people in it being moral in their interpersonal interactions.

        Which is why Muslims are a real problem if a free society is something you value.

    5. Yeah what Fluffy said. You just can’t let these fuckers push people around.

  6. When Europeans decide to become intolerant, they get really intolerant. This douche won’t be looking so smug then.

    1. I’m afraid WW 2 and relying on the U.S for protection afterwards removed their backbone.

      1. I don’t think so. People as a general rule don’t willingly die. And Europeans are still the large majority. Minorities don’t exterminate majorities. It is always the other way around. If the Muslims were smart, they would be blending into society and waiting to get violent after they are a majority. Doing it now when they are still a despised minority is just going to get all of them killed.

        1. In Europe and the UK you can’t own a gun and self defense is a no no.Their masters have decided.

        2. If the Muslims were smart, they would be blending into society and waiting to get violent after they are a majority.

          In most of Europe they don’t have the option to blend in to society. Good luck getting a job at a non-Muslim business if your first name is Mohammed.

          Bonus asshole-points for assuming that people who pray to a different god are automatically waiting for the chance to get violent.

          1. Depends on the God and Prophet.

          2. “Bonus asshole-points for assuming that people who pray to a different god are automatically waiting for the chance to get violent.”

            I don’t think Muslims are ‘automatically’ waiting for the chance to get violent, but there does appear to be a correlation between Islam and violence. The majority of Muslims are non-violent, but that doesn’t change the fact that Islam is more prone to violence in the modern world than other religions.

            In Europe you’ve got Muslims fighting secularists. In Africa you’ve got Muslims fighting Christians. In east Asia you have Muslims fighting Buddhists. In India you have Muslims fighting Hindus.

            There does seem to be a common factor, even if certain people don’t want to admit it.

            Also, the Muslim majority countries are horribly violent, so the argument that this is partially the fault of European bigotry is absurd. The people who did this originated (or their parents originated) in violent countries, and they’ve simply brought that violence to France.

            It’s not the Europeans’ fault.

            1. As someone who spent a good part of his childhood in Turkey, I can offer some insight here:

              The big problem with Islam is that the Koran is held to be the literal word of God. Translations are frowned upon (and not permitted in religious services) because the angel dictated it to Mohammed in arabic.

              This is different than Christiantiy, where the vast majority of sects hold that the bible was inspired by God but written by fallible humans.

              The latter allows for change and the former requires stasis.

              And the Koran was written in a time where forcible violent religious conversion/genocide was OK. It has terrible economic principles encoded within it (eg the prohibition on loaning money for interest).

              Modern Moslem societies need to have the state supressing the religion to keep it out of the political sphere (this is a descriptive statement); otherwise inevitably the devout seek to impose the rules for good living throughout society as they are commanded to by the literal word of God.

              These sorts of massacres are commanded by God, and one cannot really condemn the practice without condemning God.

              1. That is exactly the problem with Islam Tarran. I have a friend who was a translator in Afghanistan. As a game he used to ask captured Taliban fighters what they knew about Muhammad. A good number of them would tell him that Muhammad was alive and a guy living in Saudi Arabia.

                The Afghan war against the Soviets was unversally considered a Jihad by the Muslim world. The Soviets were trying to forcibly convert Muslims to secularism and it met every requirement to be a jihad. Yet, not once during that war did anyone conduct a sucide bombing. They only do such now because Saudi funded imams came in and took over the Mosques in the 1990s and changed the brand of Islam people practiced. It is illegal to translate the Koran in most Islamic countries and the Koran is written in a very archaic form of Arabic. So very few Muslims outside of the Western world have any idea what the Koran actually says. They only know what their Imam tells them.

                How do two losers in Boston go out and murder kids in the name of Islam when the Koran says doing that is a mortal sin? Because those two losers have no idea what the Koran says.

                That goes back to the desperate need for Muslims to reform their religion. No one makes the religion this way except for the Muslims who practice it.

                1. That goes back to the desperate need for Muslims to reform their religion. No one makes the religion this way except for the Muslims who practice it.

                  How very presbyterian of you.

                  1. KDN,

                    How is it not true? The religion is a product of the beliefs and actions of its followers. If Muslims don’t want Islam to be violent and intolerant, they need to stand up and make it not violent and intolerant. Non Muslims can’t do that for them.

                    1. Oh, I agree, it’s a theological joke about the way you think religions derive their authority (presbyterian vs. episcopal).

                      But your attitude is applicable since most Islamic sects are organized in a presbyterian manner, so to speak.

              2. The reformation had a tremendously positive impact on Christianity because it resulted in several Christian sects that didn’t feel the Bible was the unerring word of God. This meant that over time you had competing religious groups that did away with a lot of the worst aspects of the Bible.

                Islam has never had that. They are still a brutal, iron age religion. The reason there are a lot of civilized, kindhearted, non-violent Muslims in the west is largely because they have adopted Western practices and have integrated into western ideas. Incidentally, that’s one of the reasons Islamic radicals hate us – because our openness and civilization allows for Muslims to become modern, civilized, and non-violent.

                If your goal is a barbaric theocracy, you can see how Western democracies would be a threat. We’re goddamn seductive.

                1. Irish – I think you may have it backwards.

                  The Christian Reformation resulted in sects that did not believe the Catholic Church was the unerring word of God. The did believe the Bible was. But the Old Testament was written by many prophets and the New Testament has multiple version of Jesus’ life – and he was a sarcastic contradictory character. So, Christians became less unified and somewhat less dangerous in the long run due to the Reformation.

                  Islam had a similar reformation that began with ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the 18th Century. Like the Protestant Reformation, it was a back-to-scripture type movement. Unfortunately, the scripture is the Koran and Haddiths which are pretty clear on the use of violence to enforce and spread Islam. Their reformation made Islam more dangerous and problematic for the rest of the world.

                  1. What Drake said. The Reformation wasn’t as simple as people make it out. First, the Catholics were not as bad as made out. Second, the Protestants were not as enlightened. The real hard core Calvinists were not exactly pleasant people or anyone you would want running your society.

                    Other than the occasional outbreak of tribal fanaticism, Islam was not much of a problem in the world in the 19th Century. And the Middle East was a pretty enlightened place as late as the 1960s. Islam only became a problem in the last 40 or so years. And a lot of the reason for that is that it got infected with the Western cult of victimhood. A lot of what drives radical Islam is a sense of victimhood and oppression among Muslims. And much of that sentiment comes from Western Liberals. Western Liberals in many ways foster this kind of crap.

                    1. Well, except for that whole mess in Sudan the British had to sort out when that guy declared himself the Mahdi.

                    2. John,

                      That is what I was referring to by ‘occasional outbreaks of tribal fanaticism”. And those movements were crushed ruthlessly.

                  2. That’s a good point. There was also another Islamic awakening following WWII which was led by people like Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood.

                    Qutb in particular was a total psychotic. He studied for a short time in America and claimed that the CIA tried to seduce him with a honeypot while en route to the US so that they could rob him of his Muslim purity.

                    I’ve also always loved his description of a 1950 social he attended in the basement of a Church in Colorado Springs. He makes it sound like a Sodomite orgy, which probably is not entirely an accurate representation of 1950’s Colorado Springs.

                    When you’ve got religious leaders like that, it’s not surprising when your religion goes in bad directions.

                    1. Yeah Irish and people like Qutb were nothing but the Islamic version of communist fighters in the rest of the world. Radical Islam is a form of religious fascism. And the current version of it really got its start as a post war anti-Western liberation movement. It is driven by the same sort of Utopian ideas and cult of victimhood that drove other anti-Imperial movements. When you get down to it, there isn’t a lot of difference between the Khmer Rouge preaching year zero and ending the imperial yoke of oppression over Cambodia and what Isis would like to do to Iraq and Syria. The language and garb may be different, but the underlying sentiment is the same.

                2. The reformation had a tremendously positive impact on Christianity because it resulted in several Christian sects that didn’t feel the Bible was the unerring word of God.

                  And the root of that impact was the translation of the Bible into common languages so that more people had access to it – and maybe more importantly, that different people would translate it differently and maybe even incorrectly.

              3. Well what tarran said, and I’d argue that Islamic history has something to do with it. The fundamental difference between the other Abrahamic faiths and Islam is that Judaism and Christianity spend a lot of their formative years as minority religions in larger empires (for Christians, they were a minority in the massive polytheistic Roman empire until Constantine, and the Jews were a small kingdom surrounded by stronger powers until being conquered by the Persians, Greeks, Romans, etc.). Islam did deal with early minority status, but its response was to carve out an empire of its own where it was dominant. I think that’s one of the main reasons that Islam has so much to say about the management of society and the control of individuals (religious iconography, status of minority religions, legal systems, hell even inheritance laws). It’s a religion that has been historically used to being ‘on the top of the food chain’ and a lot of its doctrine in regards to the use of power and force comes off as a product of that.

                1. John Titor,

                  That is true but only until the 19th Century. Muslims thought they were invincible until Napoleon showed up and took over Egypt. It was a soul shattering experience for Muslims. Muslims spent the next 120+ years on the ass end of every Western Power’s imperial desires. And Islam reformed a lot during that time and the Middle East became much less backward than it was. Indeed, the Middle East was not a bad or intolerant place up through World War II. It only started to retrograde and become intolerant when it got infected with Leftist anti-imperialism.

                  1. The jihadists still lament the loss of Spain, while most Europeans have only vague ideas about the Reconquista which ended over 500 years ago.

                  2. It probably didn’t help that we decided to shove a bunch of shiite’s and sunni’s together in different places and then expect them to get along.

                  3. Right about when this guy had influence is when Islam got all violently fundamentalist and puritanical.

              4. It has terrible economic principles encoded within it

                So does the Bible. “Don’t be rich” is one of them. Another is “sell all your possessions and follow me.”

            2. The people who did this originated (or their parents originated) in violent countries, and they’ve simply brought that violence to France.

              I think that lets progressive Western thought off the hook. The grievance industry tells them they’re Noble Victims, and everything wrong in their lives is the fault of society. It gives them extra validation, at least.

          3. When the basis of your religion is convert or or I am instructed to kill you then assuming violence is relatively easy.

            1. FUQ,

              It is not kill you. But I am entitled to enslave you and treat you as a second class citizen. Yeah, violence is a bit of a given.

              1. Well violence is an acceptable means of enforcing that entitlement.

          4. Muslims all over Europe claim their goal is to take over Europe. Maybe the people who did this were not Muslims. You get bonus moron points for denying reality.

            Again, you would think nothing of condemning western religions or political movements for this shit. If the Occupy movement started murdering people, you and everyone on here would rightly call them violent fucks, even though most occupy people are not murderers. But since Muslims are brown people and it is hard to say something about brown people, you don’t apply the same standard here. Fuck that. Call it like it is.

            1. Muslims all over Europe claim their goal is to take over Europe. Maybe the people who did this were not Muslims.

              Which is why they shouldn’t even be allowed to reside in these countries. They (muslims “moderate” or not) have got an ideological commitment not only to the domination of the west by Islam, but to the destruction of European culture, history and even ethnicity in many cases.

              1. At some point that is going to be the conclusion the Europeans are going to make. What other choice do they have? That is why these sorts of events are in the grand scheme of things bigger tragedies for Muslims than they are for the rest of the world.

                An analogous situation is the conflict between the plains Indians and the United States. The two sides were utterly incomparable with one another. You could not have farmers and American civilization on the plains with nomadic Indians living there. It is not a question of which side was right or wrong or better or worse. It is a reality that they could never live in the same place. Either the whites had to stop settling and not live on the plains or the Indians had to either die or stop being Indians. There was no middle ground.

                If Muslims are not careful, they will force Europe into the same dilemma. You can’t have a western democracy and secular society and also have one group that is above insult and demands submission to its views. One side or the other has to change or go.

                1. Some who study the phenomenon of radical Islam in Europe believe that your very attitude is one main contributing factor. European Muslims are discriminated against and shut out of mainstream society already, so why do you think continuing to do this will reduce radicalism? Assimilation, which is more successful in the US, would seem to be the only way to quell continued radicalism.

                  Another point is that in Europe (and possibly the US lately), the major ideologies have collapsed and many groups, not just Muslims, are going in a more radical (usually far right) direction. The environment breeds radicalism, and part of such an environment is people like you struggling to tell the difference between the vast majority of Muslims who don’t kill people and the few who do.

                  1. European Muslims are discriminated against and shut out of mainstream society already

                    I know, they can’t even get prosecuted in Rotherham.

                  2. yeah Tony. The US has a much more welcoming culture and Muslims in the US have generally been assimilated. That is why we don’t have much of a radical Islam problem and Europe does.

                    Yes, Europe is either going to have to assimilate its Muslims or deport them. It can’t have them remain but remain outside of mainstream society.

                    And indeed, offering assimilation is essential because you have ot offer Muslims an alternative to radicalism. That said, Muslims themselves have to take the opportunity. It is a two way street. Muslims can’t be assimilated and then also demand Shira law and laws against offending their sensibilities and allows Imams to preach that homosexuals should be stoned to death and Jews and Christians are pigs and subhumans.

                    The problem is two fold. First, Europeans either either don’t want Muslims to assimilate at all or if they do, they are Progressive idiots who want to use Muslims as a new pet victim group and thus refuse to tell Muslims that assimilation means assimilation and giving up their more barbaric views. Second, Muslims are by embracing increasingly intolerant and jingoistic demands both not assimilating where they could and providing fodder to those Europeans who don’t want assimilation and just want them gone.

                    1. If I relocated to Europe, I would not expect the Germans, Danes, or Poles to accommodate me by becoming less Danish, Polish, etc… I would consider it my responsibility to assimilate or live as a respectful visitor.

                    2. And that is the thing Drake, a lot of people have. The idea that you can’t move to France and become French the way you can move to America and be American is in many ways a lie Americans tell themselves to feel good. It is harder to move to France and become French, but not impossible.

                      Go to France sometime. There are black Frenchman who speak French and are in every way French. The same is true in Britain and Germany. There is a huge Jamaican community in Britain. There are communities of Poles and Eastern Europeans in Germany. And they seem to do just fine. But all of those people learn the language and embrace the culture.

                      What you can’t do is move to France or Germany and try and live like you did back home. You have to embrace the culture the locals do. If that is too decadent for your sensibilities, you shouldn’t move there.

                    3. Europeans engaging in ethnic cleansing just might be a bigger problem than the one they’re trying to solve. Usually works out that way anyway.

                    4. No Tony it doesn’t. Ethnic cleansing is usually remarkably effective at solving problems. See for example the ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans that went on in Czechoslovakia and Poland after World War II. It was very unpleasant for the Germans involved, but it very effectively solved Poland and Czechoslovakia’s ethnic problems.

                    5. No Tony it doesn’t. Ethnic cleansing is usually remarkably effective at solving problems. See for example the ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans that went on in Czechoslovakia and Poland after World War II. It was very unpleasant for the Germans involved, but it very effectively solved Poland and Czechoslovakia’s ethnic problems.

                      And for all the talk of the immorality of genocide, the victors of World War II saw no problem with doing it to the Germans.

                    6. Shit, John, why waste a serious argument on someone who won’t, or can’t, understand?

                  3. European Muslims are discriminated against and shut out of mainstream society already, so why do you think continuing to do this will reduce radicalism?

                    They’re most certainly a protected class and whatever discrimination is visited upon them is usually warranted. People get brought up on charges just for speaking ill of their religion.

                    The environment breeds radicalism, and part of such an environment is people like you struggling to tell the difference between the vast majority of Muslims who don’t kill people and the few who do.

                    Their religion breeds radicalism. As evidenced by the inherent violence present in every single Muslim community on planet Earth.

                  4. ‘Tony’, bringing the derp like no one else. ‘Tony’, everyone!

          5. In most of Europe they don’t have the option to blend in to society. Good luck getting a job at a non-Muslim business if your first name is Mohammed.

            Bullshit. Utter bullshit. The Turkish minority is remarkably better at assimilation and cooperation when compared to the abysmal behavior North Africans, Morrocans and Pakistani’s, to name a few. Those latter groups have their shit culture to thank for why assimilation proves so difficult for them.

            I know many westernized (former) Muslims in Europe. They are not a problem as far as any reasonable person is concerned.

            1. Yes it is bullshit. The Turks have made it reasonably well in Germany. It isn’t perfect but nothing ever is. And there are a good number of Algerians who are okay in France. But, those are not the Algerians who sit on their asses on welfare expecting France to let them live like they did back home.

              1. I got Lancia after having made $8688 this month and more than ten-k last-month . this is really the easiest work I’ve ever had . I started this 3 months ago and right away earned more than $84 per/hour .
                Go to this website ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

          6. Good luck getting a job at a non-Muslim business if your first name is Mohammed.

            Then maybe stop naming your kids ‘Mohammed’? That’s a good first step in ‘blending in’.

            And it is a simple fact that all followers of the One God have gone through a violent phase. So ascribing violence to one of the schisms of the cult is simply accepting reality.

  7. tarran: Don’t know if you’re still listening here and I haven’t read everything upthread, but I’m reaching out to you with sympathy for the inevitable grief this will cause for you and other Muslims and Arabs (realizing you’re Turk, not Arab) and even random Hindus and Sikhs who are going to get shit for this.

    While I still maintain that all religionists everywhere of every stripe enable these things to some degree, your level of culpability in this is roughly that of a US Unitarian’s culpability in the Hindu/Muslim violence in India (ie, 0.000000001).

    1. Sure they do Tonio. But difference of degree matters. You won’t admit that because doing so violates your PC sensibilities. Christians and Buddhists and others must be as bad as Muslims, they just have to be.

      1. Again I don’t understand why it’s so hard for people to believe that all cultures are not equal and are not all deserving of the same level of respect, if any at all.

  8. I am the Prophet of Allah. Mohammed was a fraud, his followers are infidels.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.