ISIS

ISIS Condemns Political Correctness

Islamic State propaganda boasts: We're not P.C.!

|

YouTube

The latest issue of Dabiq, the ISIS propaganda magazine, mocks Westerners for being too P.C. to fully embrace religious violence. The Bible is filled with "clear references to violently applying the Law of the Lord," the author argues, but "Christians have cast aside such commandments and instead have followed papal decrees and the sermons of priests—showing that their love for men is greater than their love for the Creator of men." The Islamic State, by contrast, is "not ashamed of abiding by the rules sent down from their Lord regarding war and enforcement of divine law."

And so, the magazine declares,

if it were the Muslims, instead of the Crusaders, who had fought the Japanese and Vietnamese or invaded the lands of the Native Americans, there would have been no regrets in killing and enslaving those therein. And since those mujahidin would have done so bound by the Law, they would have been thorough and without some "politically correct" need to apologize years later.

I'm not sure when the phrase "politically correct" entered the ISIS lexicon, but this isn't the only time the concept has come up in the English-language edition of the magazine. Another article in the same issue scoffs at pundits who profess not to know why ISIS hates them, declaring that such "analysts and journalists" say this only "to keep themselves from becoming a target for saying something that the masses deem to be 'politically incorrect.'"

By the way: If you wanted more details about how the Islamic State claims it would have fought the Japanese, the Vietnamese, and the Native Americans, the magazine is glad to oblige. The Japanese "would have been forcefully converted to Islam from their pagan ways—and if they stubbornly declined, perhaps another nuke would change their mind." The Vietnamese would "be offered Islam or beds of napalm." If ISIS had battled the Native Americans, the conquerers "would have taken their surviving women and children as slaves, raising the children as model Muslims and impregnating their women to produce a new generation of mujahidin." Also, Jews "would face a slaughter that would make the Holocaust sound like a bedtime story," and the African slave trade "would have continued, supporting a strong economy," because God thinks it's fine "to sell captured pagan humans." If your only criterion for supporting a movement is how un-P.C. it is, I guess this sales pitch is for you.

Advertisement

NEXT: Short Circuit: A roundup of recent federal court decisions

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 your only criterion for supporting a movement is how un-P.C. it is, I guess this sales pitch is for you.

    *Applauds*

    A nicely disguised dig at the yokels, Jesse.

    1. Y COM ISISIS ONYL GROUP THAT TLAK SENTS ANEYMOR

      AHMA GO JOINE ISSI YEEHAW

    2. I hear ISIS hates feminists even more than the Gamergaters and the Sad Puppies.

      1. Take a read on the PDF. They really… really hate the gays. I mean… yeah…

        1. Oddly, they don’t seem to have noticed that Omar Mateen was obviously a closeted fag.

          1. Was that ever confirmed or are you being snarky?

            1. He apparently hung out in the gay bar for months and used gay dating apps.
              Now, maybe he was just casing the gay bar to plan his attack, but then what’s the point of using a gay dating app?

              1. Now, maybe he was just casing the gay bar to plan his attack, but then what’s the point of using a gay dating app?

                Well, gee, if your object of hatred is find self-identified gay people to target, wouldn’t one go when they self-identify?

                Basically, you’re saying that since Pete Townsend was writing a book about paedophelia, researching psych case studies, relevant material, and interviewing kiddie diddlers on the subject via the internet made/makes him a paedophile, correct?

                That TDS has *really* rotted your brain, Hazel.

                1. Has Pete finished that book yet?

                  1. Has Pete finished that book yet?

                    Via Wiki entry: “Who I Am”

                    In 2003 Townshend was arrested for allegedly downloading child-pornography. In the book he explains that he was fighting the presence of such images, and was helping to set up “a research program for a new support system for survivors of childhood abuse”.[10][20] He was later given a formal police caution.[21][22] Townshend wrote that he had accepted the caution only because “I was in no frame of mind to live through another eternity ? this time in court”,[23] although he later wished he had gone to trial to prove his innocence.[24]

                    So basically, arrested, questioned, was told to cease and desist research, and accepted the caution. That was 13 years ago, and nothing has surfaced since, like no scoping out kiddie diddling nightclubs, no apparent kiddie hookup apps, no recent conversions to religions or cults of extreme viewpoints.

    3. He has a point. The only logical options really are:

      1) Ready-for-Hillary feminist SJW who thinks Garfield is secretly racist

      2) Literally supporting ISIS

      1. He has a point.

        Its a nice variation on guilt by association, artfully done.

      2. 3) A national socialist

        Between 1 and 3, it’s possible that 1 is actually the more libertarian option.

    4. So, that means that if you’re so extreme in hating ISIS that you want to halt all Muslim immigration, it just means you really progressive, right?

    5. Except ISIS is completely PC. They’re near the top of the progressive stack.

      If you’re allowed to do all the things the left loves to do–murder, enslave, slaughter outgroup members, enforce rigid intellectual conformity at pain of death, punish sexual outliers–and of course, nakedly seek power for the sake of power–then you’re a biggie in the PC world.

  2. I’m not sure when the phrase “politically correct” entered the ISIS lexicon, but this isn’t the only time the concept has come up in the English-language edition of the magazine. Another article in the same issue scoffs at pundits who profess not to know why ISIS hates them, declaring that such “analysts and journalists” say this only “to keep themselves from becoming a target for saying something that the masses deem to be ‘politically incorrect.'”

    I think we need to know more about how this magazine is translated, and by whom. It would be interesting to see the original version of this document (written in arabic?) and then have someone fluent compare the phrases.

    1. It was probably written in english – by an english lit grad from Oberlin.
      That’s where it entered their lexicon.

      1. All kidding aside, I’m glad to see someone with an English lit degree from Oberlin actually found work.

        Though the quality of writing doesn’t exactly esteem Oberlin’s English department. Oh well, I’m sure the writer at least learned to spot a microaggression a mile away.

  3. Deny agency. Claim de-ligitimacy. Rinse, repeat.

  4. Yes they are. In their own way. They’re just as much PC control freaks as the PC left in the USA are. But instead of shaming people on Twitter and Facebook and trying to get more nanny state laws passed, they just stone people and chop off their heads. PC leftists have a jealous.

    1. ^This^
      A thousand times. They’re absolutely PC. Throwing people off buildings for holding different opinions, beliefs, or attitudes is about as PC as you can get. It’s the end state of all SJWs and other PC types.

      1. They’re absolutely PC.

        It’s just a different polity. But are we really surprised that these people turned out to be hypocrites?

    2. The right is pretty PC too.

      Plenty of shaming going around about drugs and sex on the religious right.
      Plenty of shaming going around about “unpatriotic” speech on the nationalist right.

      That’s why the SJWs are just like nagging church ladies. They’re the religious scolds of the left. Both sides do it.

      1. “Both sides do it” is only trivially true, because it ignores the relative power of the two sides. It’s been quite a while since the right had the power to get people fired or a career destroyed for a joke or offhand remark or political donation they didn’t like, while the left does that all the time, and has for many years.

        1. Many, being like the last 10-15, which is a pretty short span of time compared to the centuries during which making an un-PC religious statement could get you fired, or tortured, or killed.

          Please remember Alan Turing’s chemical castration at the command of the British government, and subsequent suicide, was less than a century ago.

          1. So what you’re saying is those nuns massacred by the communist atheists during the Spanish civil war had it coming?

            Seriously though, I’m not exactly sure what your point here is. People with strong beliefs like to impose those beliefs on others, yes, regardless of where those beliefs fall on some circumstantial political spectrum. “Though I disagree with what you say, I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” is, was, and perhaps always will be a rare sentiment.

          2. Sorry, but I think a “both sides do it” argument that relies on the distant past is often weak. I can’t complain about decades of islamic terror because of the Crusades? Complaints about feminists are invalid because women didn’t used to be able to vote? The treatment of Brendan Eich is somehow balanced out by Alan Turing? Those are more distractions than arguments.

            The current PC threat and power is on the left. That needs to be confronted, not hand-waved away.

            1. I don’t see any ‘right wingers’ asking for free speech to be banned. So right there you have a valid argument that the left is worse. In fact they want to remove both of the first 2 amendments.

              I was walking past some people a few months ago who had set up a table on the sidewalk and had signs and some flyers they were passing out. Once I got close, I realized they were trying to get people to sign a petition. When I got stopped by them, out of curiosity, I actually stopped to engage them. Then I saw their petition was for gun control in the community. I asked the lady who seemed to be the ring leader ‘Why would you want to take away your own constitutional right to protect yourself’? I got silence. I mean I really expected something, but out of the 4 people standing there, no one said anything. One of them tried to had me the petition and I politely said ‘No’ and went on my way.

              1. AFAIK, the right still thinks flag-burning should be illegal. Correct me if wrong.

                1. That is such a trivial example, compared to all the thoughtcrimes the left wants to punish.

          3. Please remember Alan Turing’s chemical castration at the command of the British government, and subsequent suicide, was less than a century ago.

            It was eternally shameful that we, the British, did such a vile thing to Mr. Turing.

        2. When did ‘the right’ do anything like that?

          Rooting out people actively working to destroy your country* is a far cry from destroying someone’s life and business because they didn’t want to cater a purely hypothetical gay wedding pizza reception.

          *when it’s the fellow travelers of the people actively working to destroy your country who are decrying this as a ‘witch hunt'(note–THEY were the witch hunters, too), you’ve got to question the motivations.

      2. Except that nagging church ladies don’t have any power and never did beyond a community level. Nagging church ladies aren’t in DC screaming at politicians to take away everyone’s constitutional rights, including their own.

        1. Why are you conflating shaming people on Twiitter/Facebook to going to DC demanding politicans take people’s rights away?

          What the SJWs do on Facebook/Twitter is social shaming, which is *exactly* what nagging church ladies do.

          1. OMFG–you’re complaining about the people exercising their right to peacefully assemble.

            Pleeeease change your fucking handle–Heinlein must be spinning close to critical at this point. You have lost your god damned mind.

            Surely there’s got to be some close minded naziesque character, fit only for spittle flecked diatribes and an eventual ignominious demise that suits you better……?

  5. This segment, for instance, seems a little more in keeping with a translation of original text:

    Shortly following the blessed attack on a sodomite,
    Crusader nightclub by the mujahid Omar Mateen
    ?, American politicians were quick to jump into the
    spotlight and denounce the shooting, declaring it a
    hate crime, an act of terrorism, and an act of senseless
    violence. A hate crime? Yes. Muslims undoubtedly
    hate liberalist sodomites, as does anyone else with
    any shred of their fitrah (inborn human nature) still
    intact. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims
    have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving
    enemies of Allah. But an act of senseless violence?
    One would think that the average Westerner, by now,
    would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions
    of the mujahidin ? who have repeatedly stated
    their goals, intentions, and motivations ? don’t make
    sense.

    My point is, it’s a passage which uses the more flowery prose of the Islamists, and it’s bereft of phrases like “totally cool” and “far out, man”.

    I guess I’m wondering if the translations are done by different people/groups and the translator may have a better grasp of trolling in this particular case.

    1. Many English-speaking Westerners have joined ISIS. I’m sure they are in charge of writing or translating.

  6. The Vietnamese would “be offered Islam or beds of napalm.”

    That would not have been a winning strategy, ISIS.

  7. “But, grandmother ISIS, what big eyes you have!”
    “All the better to see enslave you with, my dear.”

  8. if it were the Muslims, instead of the Crusaders, who had fought the Japanese and Vietnamese or invaded the lands of the Native Americans, there would have been no regrets in killing and enslaving those therein.

    Ugh, so Islamophobic. Educate yourself, ISIS

  9. Drown the motherfuckers in bacon grease.

    1. This is the kind of tolerance we need to give to ISIS.

  10. Also, Jews “would face a slaughter that would make the Holocaust sound like a bedtime story,” and the African slave trade “would have continued, supporting a strong economy,” because God thinks it’s fine “to sell captured pagan humans.”

    This whole thing is so awful one wonders if it’s a false-flag operation. The whole section attacking so-called “western liberalism” should be front-and-center whenever NPR runs another pot-boiler on hate or attacks against gays or trans people. I mean, when you put it in context, I’m getting 500 minutes a day on the North Carolina bathroom law, and zero minutes a day on this. So I’m left to ask, does NPR sort of consider ISIS a bunch of yokels who aren’t to be taken seriously?

    1. So I’m left to ask, does NPR sort of consider ISIS a bunch of yokels who aren’t to be taken seriously?

      Well, they are the JV team.

    2. NPR, like a lot of proggies, is focussed on the Near Enemy, and can’t be arsed with what anyone else is up to, no matter how bad.

      Thus: bathroom signage and policy in the US is a much bigger deal than genocide and death penalties in the MidEast, because bathroom signage and policy in the US is the work of the Near Enemy.

      1. the Near Enemy is also troubled by radical Islam, which is why the left reflexively talks about the Crusades or some Muslim in the Army or whatever. When you politicize every single aspect of life, there is no consideration of what the Near Enemy says, just reflexive opposition to it.

        1. When you politicize every single aspect of life, there is no consideration of what the Near Enemy says, just reflexive opposition to it.

          “Reflexive opposition” is a phrase that can characterize the behavior of lots of people. Not just those on the left.

          1. I think the last two weeks have shown us that reflexive opposition is the basis of our entire political system.

    3. They do sound like comic-book villains.

    4. NPR does what leftists do: view everything politically, requiring an opposite stance of whatever the other side believes. If the right says radical Islam is bad, the left must disagree. There really is an Occam’s Razor quality to it.

    5. In all likelihood, if npr did report on this, they’d just say the NC bathroom bill and ISIS are part of the same phenomenon and that letting businesses make their own bathroom policy is akin to Islamic suicide bombings.

  11. What in thew wide ,wide world of sports is going on here?

  12. If you wanted more details about how the Islamic State claims it would have fought the Japanese, the Vietnamese, and the Native Americans, the magazine is glad to oblige. The Japanese “would have been forcefully converted to Islam from their pagan ways?and if they stubbornly declined, perhaps another nuke would change their mind.” The Vietnamese would “be offered Islam or beds of napalm.”

    Sounds like more of the same to me. Stop biting us, ISIS!

    1. Yeah, I would bet more than a little money on a war between Islamists and post-Meiji Imperial Japanese going poorly for the former. All the Muslims would have is lots of people, and the Japanese in WW2 showed that what mattered more was strategy and industrial capacity.

      1. Yeah, having lots of people didn’t help the Chinese much in WWII.

      2. Fuck it, let’s give Japan its army back, tell them we’re sorry and that they were right all along, and let them loose on these goatfuckers.

  13. I’m not sure when the phrase “politically correct” entered the ISIS lexicon

    Probably around the same time that all those national leaders loudly declared that they weren’t real Muslims and their beliefs had nothing to do with Islam, which probably made a great deal of them slightly pissed. Of course those leaders are just kafir and apostates so it’s not like their opinion of Islam counts.

  14. Reductio ad ISISum

  15. Also from this issue:

    I can’t really
    say that I’ve faced that many hardships after
    making hijrah. I think the hardest thing for me was
    losing many close friends. Besides that, I’m now on
    the fourth house that I’ve had to leave because they
    keep getting bombed or damaged in the airstrikes, but
    praise is due to Allah in all circumstances.

  16. If ISIS had battled the Native Americans, the conquerers “would have taken their surviving women and children as slaves, raising the children as model Muslims and impregnating their women to produce a new generation of mujahidin.”

    This makes me want to burn down a mosque.

    1. At least they’re punching up.

    2. That’s probably what they want you to do. Go indiscriminately burn down a mosque frequented by some sect of moderate Muslims in America, thereby alienating and pissing off a bunch of domestic US-born Muslims, thus causing a bunch of US born Muslims to join ISIS.

      Never trust your enemy when he’s saying or doing something that is clearly designed to infuriate you.
      It’s like you didn’t even bother to watch the last season of Game of Thrones or something.

      1. “If your enemy is of choleric temper, irritate him.” Sun Tzu. And also Tony Soprano.

      2. Never trust your enemy when he’s saying or doing something that is clearly designed to infuriate you.
        It’s like you didn’t even bother to watch the last season of Game of Thrones or something.

        So they’re lying about their intentions? I take them at their word here. And I have no doubt that a significant portion of the Muslim population worldwide feels similarly, as polling indicates.

    3. It really does put leftist claims of “Hate Speech” into perspective, doesn’t it?

      1. It’s not hate speech unless you’re a white cishet male or something. Then it’s literally murder

    4. It should. All the great cultures of the Cradle of Civilization are gone–consumed and shit out as this vile abomination of a faith. Obliterated in the name of a god so horrific that it cannot allow itself to be seen.

  17. Good article until the last sentence, then it went to shit. They just can’t help themselves.

    1. No, they can’t. The Reason hivemind has concluded that it prefers Hillary to Trump. That’s just the way it is.

      This one, at least, has some originality, and isn’t a lazy recycling of yesterday’s Journolist talking points.

      1. OT: I thought you might find this interesting, given your profession.

        1. I had heard about that.

          We may actually bring a legal malpractice suit against one of our malpractice defense attorneys. Its very rare, though.

      2. It’s not hard to come to the conclusion that Hillary is better than Trump.
        It’s the mental gymnastics it takes to justify voting for Trump over Johnson that mystifies me.

        The sky will rain blood and fire if Hillary is elected, therefore I have to vote for a national socialist assclown to prevent her from winning. Yeah.

        1. t’s not hard to come to the conclusion that Hillary is better than Trump.
          then explain it, as if Johnson is a non-starter. She sold influence as SoS. She essentially broke Libya, leading to scores of deaths. She was apparently for arming one group of nasties in Syria to combat the Assad nasties, which always works well for the US. She was for Iraq.

          Trump has used eminent domain and utilized the rules of a system that Hillary was part of devising. He even talked about renting politicians early on, and one of those rent-a-pols is better?

          1. Hillary is more supportive of free trade than Trump. Despite her primary season rhetoric, she negotiated TPP and her husband signed NAFTA. She also doesn’t constantly go around blathering about how China is stealing our jobs and how terrible the trade deficit is.

            Hillary is also better on immigration, considering she’s not going back on DACA or any other Obama’s other measures to allow certain long-term illegal aliens to stay in the country. She’d also be more likely to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would actually work – as in allow in more unskilled labor than under current law.

            Also, while government spending would rise marginally less under Trump, the deficit would rise less under Hillary. So at least she promises to pay for her spending.

            Finally, as noted elsewhere, given that Trump is running as a Republican, his disasterous economic policies would end up getting blamed on “Capitalism”. He’d be like Bush II, only ten times worse, and what we’d end up with afterwards would be ten times the socialist that Obama is. Elect Trump and in 4-8 years you can count on a major depression which will lead us to single payer health care and free college and everything the Bernie bros dream of.

            1. In virtually no time, she flip-flopped on TPP. How is that “campaign rhetoric” but Trump’s carrying on about China isn’t?

              Not that long ago, Herself was also in favor of a wall and, for some reason, letting in more unskilled labor does not strike everyone as such a great idea. I’m sure the US Chamber loves it; the taxpayer left to subsidize the welfare and other public expenditures that will follow may see it differently.

              she promises to pay for her spending.
              And how does she do that? This is a woman who co-opted Bernie’s free college spiel. Her former boss made lots of promises, too, that have not ended well.

              I’ll say again – it’s easy to come up with reasons for opposing Trump but it’s next to impossible to list any for supporting Hillary. You can point to what she says or promises, and then there is the 30 years of what she’s done. Gun rights are in trouble. The First Amendment may be, too.

              1. Trump has NOT flip-flopped on trade. He’s been consistently anti-trade since the 1980s.
                I can count on him being anti-trade. As far as Hillary is concerned, it’s standard political practice to run to the base during primary season and then move to the center, so Hillary’s move left during the primaries is questionable.

                Letting in more unskilled labor is morally the right thing because it is an increase in freedom.
                This is a libertarian website, REMEMBER? We’re in favor of people being allowed to do stuff, like move around and engage in voluntary employment contracts.

                1. Also the higher spending is obviously going to be paid for by taxes. But that’s not a bad thing since people will actually *feel* the pain of the taxes.
                  Balanced budgets paid for by taxes are always to be preferred over unfunded spending, both because it makes people actually feel the cost of the government they are getting, and because it doesn’t shuck the costs off on future generations.

                2. Hazel,

                  The writers may still write with a more-or-less libertarian view but a good portion of the commentariat has adopted a nationalist bent focused on collective “rights.”

                  1. Yeah, I noticed that.

                    It’s exposing the cracks in the libertarian movement. There’s a basic contradiction between nationalism and libertarianism. Trump is pulling nationalist-leaning libertarians, but nationalism is innately socialist and collectivist, hence the contradiction.

                    This is what I’ve been talking about Trump moving the axes from socialism vs. capitalism to national socialism vs. international socialism. We’re all socialists now. Even the libertarians.

                    1. To be fair, I don’t think we can blame this entirely on Trump. Sure, he has been a major player this election cycle shifting the country away from free market principles, but hell, Republicans have been doing that for ages. Of course, the left has been pulling people away from capitalism for 200 years but the bigger danger comes from the right continuing to abandon whatever moral high ground it had.

                3. Letting in more unskilled labor is morally the right thing because it is an increase in freedom.

                  Is letting the First and Second Amendments be completely undermined a libertarian position as well?

                  1. You know as well as I do that Hillary isn’t going to get any gun control legislation through congress.

                    1. So only the First Amendment has to die for the cause of doctrinal libertarian purism on immigration then? That’s good I suppose.

                      And we’ll see what her Supreme Court has to say on gun control legislation over the next couple decades Hazel.

                    2. I don’t know what you’re talking about with the First Amendment. Trump has claimed he’d go after Amazon for saying mean things about him, and has said absolutely nothing about gay cake, so I fail to see how he;s any better on First Amendment issues than Hillary.

                    3. Clinton has spent the election cycle declaring that she’d actively work to destroy people’s right to criticize her, but she frames it in bullshit about ‘corporations not being people’. And no one calls her on it Hazel, no one. That’s why Clinton is so much more dangerous on free speech.

                      The difference is how they frame it. Trump is playing the tough guy with his ego, that’s not a way to win people over, while Clinton is spewing propaganda that people actually buy.

                    4. You know as well as I do that Hillary isn’t going to get any gun control legislation

                      through congress.

                      That is what incremental EO’s are for, as Obumbles has demonstrated over and over. Even when they are tied up in the courts, The Regulatory State is still implementing regardless of how a court rules.

                    5. “You know as well as I do that ObamaCare is going to fail just like HillaryCare in the 90s.” — Me in 2008.

                      And it would have if it had been discussed openly and then voted on like back then.

                4. Letting in more unskilled labor is morally the right thing because it is an increase in freedom.

                  It’s not an increase in my freedom (or yours) to add welfare cases and future anti-libertarian voters to a broke welfare state with a long-term decreasing need for unskilled labor.

                  1. So, by that logic, letting black people vote decreased your liberty because they voted for the wrong people.

                    1. So, by that logic, letting black people vote decreased your liberty because they voted for the wrong people

                      When black people got the right to vote, thanks to republicans, they pretty uniformly voted for republicans–because the DNC, at the time, was having too much fun at their annual cross lighting and lynching bbq.

            2. I find your last point about capitalism being blamed to be the most convincing. Of course, capitalism will be blamed regardless of who’s in office, but having a Republican in command will only amplify the calls to “reign in” the “capricious” nature of capitalism, all for the benefit of Main Street, of course.
              An economic downturn under President Trump will be the death of whatever free market principles we have left and a surge toward Euro-style “Middle Way” economics.
              Of all the clever insights of Ayn Rand, her warning that so-called conservatives will discredit capitalism is perhaps her strongest.

            3. She’d also be more likely to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would actually work – as in allow in more unskilled labor than under current law.

              And why is that a good idea? Because our working poor are making to much money? Or because it’s never been easier for a teen-ager to get their first job? Maybe you think wages in the trades haven’t been stagnant enough?

              1. And why is that a good idea?

                Because human beings ought to be allowed to live and work where they choose.

                1. Because human beings ought to be allowed to live and work where they choose.

                  Unless there’s some reciprocity by other nations to US-openness, there’s no net-advancement of this idea merely by abandoning any immigration controls.

                  There’s nothing in basic-libertarian thinking that says we aren’t allowed to have borders or to control immigration. The idea that its some doctrinaire requirement seems to be a myth based on an economic ideal which isn’t actually possible sans “universal adoption” by everyone.

                  1. Unless there’s some reciprocity by other nations to US-openness, there’s no net-advancement of this idea merely by abandoning any immigration controls.

                    This makes no sense. If we let people in, their freedom is increased. The fact that our freedom to go live in Mexico isn’t increased, does NOT MEAN that their freedom is not increased.
                    Reciprocity is not required.

                    1. This makes no sense. If we let people in, their freedom is increased. The fact that our freedom to go live in Mexico isn’t increased, does NOT MEAN that their freedom is not increased.Reciprocity is not required.

                      Your conception seems to be that we live in a economic universe that is all benefits and no costs.

                    2. Hazel is an idealist and a dogmatist. She is blind to the real-world results of her principles. Quantity and proportion have no meaning to such people. I’ll bet that she’d support a billion Muslims moving to the US. She will sacrifice every other libertarian value on the altar of “freedom of movement.” No wonder she thinks the amnesty for all and open borders positions of the Democrats are preferable to Trump. The facts that the Democrats are doing it for (anti-libertarian) electoral advantage, that it feeds the welfare state and the surveillance state, seem to mean nothing to her.

                    3. ^^^This. Hazel is right.

                  2. There’s nothing in basic-libertarian thinking that says we aren’t allowed to have borders or to control immigration.

                    Disagree.

                    Basic libertarian thinking may acknowledge the need for some sort of nightwatch government, but beyond stopping foreign military invasions (including terrorists), borders are open under basic libertarian doctrine.

                    1. borders are open under basic libertarian doctrine.

                      And where is this convenient, simply-referenced handbook?

                    2. I think the problem with that claim is that its really more fundamentally an anarchist POV.

                      The ideal of the “Free movement of labor” is just that – an ideal.

                      You might say its consistent with some conception of an extreme, nightwatchmen govt; but then i’d argue that it would only be practicable policy if/when you’ve accomplished *that*.

                      In the meantime, its not a policy which advances any particular libertarian interests. and libertarians /= anarchists.

                    3. States have borders and free movement of people. Don’t see any zombie attacks because Californians are moving to Colorado, for example.

                    4. “States have borders and free movement of people. Don’t see any zombie attacks because Californians are moving to Colorado, for example.”

                      Then you’re blind.

                      The damage migrating Californians have done is epic.

                2. Absolutely, in Libertopia. When a first world country with a robust safety net shares a border with a corrupt shit hole populated by illiterates, you don’t see the problems an open border might cause?

            4. Hillary is more supportive of free trade than Trump….. she negotiated TPP and her husband signed NAFTA

              1) Is the idea here that anything Bill was involved with, Hillary gets credit for?

              And is it only the good-things? (in your opinion)

              Does she also get credit for DMCA, DOMA, etc?

              And

              2)what about the TPP makes you feel it is a huge win for ‘Free Trade’, exactly?

              Its a “trade” agreement – sure – but it does not entail a great deal of “eradication of barriers and increased liberalization” in the details. Not all trade agreements are pro- “Free trade”

              We already have fairly liberal trade arrangements with more than half the nations in the TPP (6 of 11) agreement. The TPP would actually introduce lots of new regulatory schemes which would make those arrangements *less ‘free’*. A la, forcing other nations to recognize US monopolies on certain drug-production, force other nations into adoption of US copyright law.. etc. and more.

              1. While not pure free trade in the libertarian view, TPP, like various other FTAs is a step in the right direction. Regarding whether it’s a net positive or negative, I defer to the Cato Foundation which believes it is a net positive.

                1. TPP, like various other FTAs is a step in the right direction

                  That’s not an argument, that’s a blandishment.

                  It even begs the question referring to it as a “free trade” agreement at all.

                  As already noted – trade relations with more than half the parties to the agreement (all of whom are the biggest countries involved) will become *LESS FREE* in the course of the agreement.

                  As the Foundation for Economic Education said it, “Its not about Trade – its about Control

                  more

                  The TPP covers a bewildering range of topics. In addition to conventional trade issues like tariff rates, it includes language on labor rights, environmental laws, copyright and patent protections, e-commerce, state-owned enterprises, corruption, and government procurement.

                  as noted – those latter issues occupy the bulk of the actual text of the agreement.

                  And none of those things are generally considered requirements of “Free Trade”… or even “the Right Direction”, as you put it.

                  An actual “free trade” agreement would occupy itself with what it *isn’t* demanding. Not hundreds of pages of regulations and enforcement mechanisms.

              2. re: the above –

                an example of one libertarian’s case against the TPP as ‘not about free trade’, and mostly about “exporting corporate protections” in IP/Copyright/Licensing/Patent law.

                and much more. One of the problems of the TPP is its lack of transparency. The bits about “lowing trade barriers” are short and relatively minor; the bits about increasing regulatory regimes run for hundreds of pages. I think any astute observer considers the bill mostly a grab-bag of special-favors being handed out to Corporate interests which have donated heavily to Obama admin and want to see some material payback in exchange.

                1. I agree largely with what you are saying. Both you and I know that real free trade doesn’t require thousands of pages of text negotiated between various bureaucrats. Of course, the likelihood of that actually happening is zero. These FTAs are certainly better than closing off trade entirely or levying enormous tariffs. Again, feel free to criticize me for deferring to authority, but I trust the Cato scholars who pored over each section and found that the TPP is a net positive, albeit slight.

                  1. i get it. I think your point is fair, but that it doesnt much to help Hazel’s case that Hillary is some great “free trader” vis a vis her competition because of it.

                    1. Agreed. The very small, slight chance that she would be significantly better on trade than Trump certainly doesn’t balance out all of the other shit she stands for and has done. For the record, I’m a (reluctant) Johnson supporter.

                2. Honestly, the best that can be said about the TPP at all is that,

                  “We think the president should do more multilateral trade deals – even if they *suck*”

                  simply because “saying” that they’re about free trade will at least advance the concept, if not its actual reality.

                  Which is a bizarre notion. Its like accepting new gun laws which pretend to “liberate” gun owners from one restriction, but impose many others, and justifying it on the grounds that “The appearance is what matters”

                  This is sort of what drove the debate about Keystone XL, imo. The reality of the issue was completely moot by the end, and each side wanted to advance the project *simply because it was a symbol* of each’s respective side.

                  There was nothing “good for the environment” about preventing the pipeline. In fact, it may have been *better* for the environment for a lot of oil to go through a pipe than by rail. But the reality doesn’t matter – the point is that the Greens “Won” and what matters is the appearance.

                  similarly, the pipeline was no great boon for US energy consumers, or anything which was going to provide huge amounts of jobs-stimulus….. or even something which libertarians should necessarily have been thrilled by (what with the eminent domain issues)…. yet many (myself included) thought it should go through just to say, “Fuck You for trying to stop it”.

                  People’s attitudes towards the TPP are basically the same.

                  1. I’m right there with you on the pipeline ordeal. It was derp from both sides.

            5. as in allow in more unskilled labor than under current law.

              Because what the United States lacks is unskilled labor…. We need more welfare recipients please.

              1. @Dennis,
                I have no doubt that the TPP is loaded with crony capitalist deals, but the default state that we have right now is by definition crony capitalist. Keep in mind that ANY import tarriffs inherently favor the interests of domestic producers over those of domestic producers. That’s crony capitalism right there.

                Thus any deal that lowers import tarriffs increases the liberty of the consumer and decreases crony capitalism. Now, the trade deal may use those import tarriffs as a negotiating lever to get a better deal for some US interests in foreign markets, for the harm of those deals falls mainly on foreign markets, and is inflicted by the governments of foreign markets on their own people. We’re inducing (say) Japan, to favor US company X instead of Y, but in Japanese markets. This is less harmful to me than MY government favoring domestic producer X over Y in domestic markets.

                Moreover, that is EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP WANTS MORE OF. He’s not opposed to TPP because he thinks it’s crony capitalist. He’s opposed to it because he thinks it’s NOT CRONY CAPITALIST ENOUGH.

                1. Er. favors the interests of domestic producers over domestic consumers.

      3. I want someone to explain the rationale for that mindset to me. The woman has a track record of 30 years, at least, of being the worst possible person, being supportive of and involved in the very policies that Reason claims to hate. The worst you can say of Trump is he took advantage of those or sought to manipulate them to his advantage.

        Yes, he says some outlandish and eyebrow-raising things, but this woman has made decisions that killed people. She has actually fucked up countries with her decisions. On what planet are these two even comparable?

        1. I want someone to explain the rationale for that mindset to me.

          That’s what they haven’t done well.

          1. At some point, the question of ‘why not’ has to be asked. It’s as if the avalanche of stories on his being mean to this person or that is supposed to be its own parade of horribles. Hillary shouldn’t even be eligible given things she has actually done. I get that Trump is far from libertarian; I don’t get the “she’s better” case.

        2. As I said above, to blind ideologues like Hazel or Cytotoxic, the fact that Hillary is for endless immigration makes her more “pro-liberty” than Trump, and that is more important to them than anything else. It’s insane, but that’s how they think.

      4. This one, at least, has some originality

        Jesse is a bright light in a stormy sea of derp.

      5. In their defense, they didn’t mention Hillary; they could be referring to hillbillies thinking they can use the n word because ‘it’s not pc.’

    2. CCCCOOOOZZZZZZZZZMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOO CCCCCCUUUUUUUUCCCCCCKKKKKKKKK FFFFFAAAAAAAGGGGZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!

      1. Great comment-thread wouldn’t have been complete without it.

  18. I read a lot of this issue. I still don’t know what ISIS wants. Can someone with a degree from the Columbia J School enlighten me?

  19. If your only criterion for supporting a movement is how un-P.C. it is, I guess this sales pitch is for you.

    you know who else gained a following by being un-PC.

    1. Roosh V?

    2. Steve Jobs?

      1. well played, it was certainly the best answer.

      2. Make Apple great again!

    3. Dammit! Should’ve known someone else would make the same joke.

    4. George Carlin?

  20. strong horse and weak horse

    all the way down

    1. ISIS commits the classic error of believing that only a ‘weak horse’ would show mercy, respect, or tolerance for one’s enemies.

      Not that I think about it, they aren’t the only one’s who commit that error.

      1. they aren’t the only one’s who commit that error.

        True, SJWs aren’t very tolerant of their opponents either.

      2. Honor cultures always think that way. It’s why they end up poor and violent, whether it’s hillbillies, the ghetto, or ISIS.

  21. The Bible is filled with “clear references to violently applying the Law of the Lord,” the author argues, but “Christians have cast aside such commandments and instead have followed papal decrees and the sermons of priests?showing that their love for men is greater than their love for the Creator of men.”

    In my experience, it’s common for Muslims to be unaware of the differences between Catholics and Protestants–the “priesthood of all believers” being one example.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_priesthood

    Meanwhile, ISIS seems to ignore all the references in the Quran to God’s mercy–there are whole sections devoted to God’s mercy. You have to bend over backwards and twist yourself in knots getting around those passages.

    To be sure, another one of the criticisms you’ll hear average Muslims typically make of Christianity is the idea that we can know that we’re forgiven for our sins just by praying. “God’s mercy isn’t ours to give away”, they’ll say.

    However, God’s mercy isn’t ours to withhold either, and there are so many passages in the Quran talking about it. If God didn’t want them to know he was merciful, he wouldn’t have put it in the Quran.

    1. Methinks conquest and domination (and sadism in many cases) are their primary motives. The Koran is just a thing they can use to make themselves feel justified in their barbarism.

      1. That’s what the Imams are saying about ISIS anyway–that their teaching is in fundamental opposition to the Quran and Islam.

        I thought this open letter from the Imams to ISIS after ISIS declared the Caliphate in 2014 was telling. The first page is an Executive Summary, which lists 24 reasons why ISIS is wrong.

        http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf

        The one that gets my goat the most is listed in Point 1:

        “It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an?or part of a verse?to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherrypick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith.”

        The thing that bugs me about it is that it isn’t just ISIS that does this; it’s all the Muslim bashers, too.

        Every time you see some anti-Muslim person quoting select passages from the Quran to show that ISIS is actually moderate Islam, you’re seeing people who, subconsciously or otherwise, are carrying ISIS’ water for them.

        Why would you want to persuade a billion+ Muslims that ISIS’ take on theology is actually what moderate Muslims should believe?

        I give those people the benefit of the doubt when I call them stupid because the other likely alternative is to call them traitors.

    2. Part of it depends on where in the Koran those “mercy” passages are. Earlier ones carry less weight. I don’t think, overall, that any mercy in the Koran outweighs the “kill the unbelievers and apostates and blasphemers and Jews and gays” passages.

    3. Actually I think Islam would benefit from having a pope. They already have a “priesthood of all believers” that’s why any wacko group of ignorant people can be manipulated by a charismatic leader into thinking that they COULD dominate the Vietnamese or Japanese for example. A pope could excommunicate them and their wacko leaders and forbid them to visit Mecca.

      1. There are five schools of Sunni jurisprudence.

        “The extant schools share most of their rulings, but differ on the particular practices which they may accept as authentic and the varying weights they give to analogical reason and pure reason.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhhab#Sunni

        They issued fatwas against ISIS. They issued fatwas against Osama bi Laden and Al Qaeda, too.

        These schools are about as old as Islam itself. When people are talking about the interpretation of Sharia, these schools are what they’re talking about.

        Some people might want to brace themselves or sit down and give it a moment to sink in, but to say that ISIS wants to implement Sharia is absurd–given that the schools of Sunni jurisprudence have issued fatwas against them.

        It’s confusing because we’ve all heard about Osama bin Laden or the Taliban issuing fatwas, but the fatwas those guys issued have no more authority in Sunni jurisprudence than yours or mine would.

        ISIS issuing fatwas is like the conspiracy nuts here in the U.S. who decide they don’t have to pay taxes or get driver’s licenses if they file the right paperwork with the right magic words in the right order.

        ISIS issuing fatwas is like me making decisions on Supreme Court cases. I’m not a judge on the Supreme Court. I haven’t been nominated, much less confirmed by the Senate. ISIS’ opinion on matters of Sharia has no more authority within Sunni jurisprudence than my opinion of Supreme Court cases.

        1. Actually, it’s worse than that. If the Supreme Court got together and all nine justices issued a ruling stating that Ken Shultz has no authority and no idea what he’s talking about for these 24 reasons, and then Congress passed a law stating that Ken Shultz has no authority, and then the President signed it, and then they Amended the Constitution to state that Ken Shultz has no authority whatsoever–then my authority would be more like ISIS’ opinion on matters of Sharia and Sunni jurisprudence.

          If ISIS implemented Sharia, they’d have to arrest themselves for crimes against humanity.

  22. Why would he want us to know he was merciful? He might want us to know that we’re not out of the running just because we screwed up, but another reason might be that he wants to warn us away from what Muslims will call hypocrisy and blasphemy. That is to say, if you need to ask God for mercy yourself, you better be sure you were willing to forgive others for the same things–otherwise, you’ll be guilty of hypocrisy. On the other hand, if you refused to forgive someone for something that God has decided to forgive that person for, then you are effectively claiming to be a higher judge than God–and that’s blasphemy.

    There are fundamental reasons why all five schools of Sunni jurisprudence have issued fatwas against ISIS.

    That latter concept has deep parallels with Christianity. In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus taught us to ask God to forgive our trespasses to the extent that we forgive the trespasses of others. Likewise, you don’t want to be the guy that refuses to forgive others for what they’ve done to you come judgement day. In Christianity, you accept personal responsibility for the murder of Jesus of Nazareth when you admit that his sacrifice was for your sins. Once God forgives you for that, if you treat other people as if they’re below you, you’re denying your own complicity in Jesus’ death–which means you aren’t covered.

    In its essence, Islam has a lot in common with Calvinism.

    1. bla bla bla Sky Daddy bla bla

      /sarc

    2. If you’re trying to argue with ISIS sympathizers, you’re on the wrong website.

      1. Well, if someone writes a post pointing out ISIS’ criticism of Christianity, pardon me, but giving a Christian criticism of ISIS’ theology doesn’t seem entirely out of place.

        Besides, there are dozens of people who are reading this thread and think that the Quran says nothing about mercy. They’re way off, too–there are Muslims bashers on this website.

        Silly bash-’em-all atheists, too. I’ve seen ’em with my own eyes.

        1. Ken,

          I’m a non-believer, but I enjoyed your post. To counter problems in religion, the best course of action, in my opinion at least, is to learn and understand, not bash with a couple of zingers.

        2. Fair enough point that there are Muslim bashers around.

        3. What’s wrong with bashing a violent ideology?

          1. Do you ignore all evidence to the contrary?

            Are you even aware of evidence to the contrary?

            Are you begging the question?

            Freedom means you can be as irrational as you want to be.

            It doesn’t mean you’re not being irrational.

    3. Islam has a LOT in common with Calvinism. No ordained priests, reliance on a literal interpretation of scripture, and a belief in predestination. Maybe with less crazy guilt for having murdered God.

  23. SWIM was radicalized by an online article about ISIS. What should I do?

    1. You seem to have missed the point … perhaps because Jesse did, and most of the goobers here. The ISIS dude is ridiculing Christians and Jews for denying the Laws of God. That’s true but Islamophobes are profoundly ignorant of both the Bible and the Quran.

      The Bible is filled with “clear references to violently applying the Law of the Lord,” the author argues,

      Deuteronomy 13 commands the immediate killing of all infidels, even one’s own brother, spouse or child. Stone to death all women who were not virgins at their wedding. And MUCH more.

      but “Christians have cast aside such commandments and instead have followed papal decrees and the sermons of priests?showing that their love for men is greater than their love for the Creator of men.”

      SOME Christians ignore the Bible as the revealed word of God, and follow those who tell them to reject God. (No Christian stoning)

      The Christian Taliban place their own will above the Will of God by deciding which of His laws to obey and which to ignore. They get all self-righteous about homosexuals, but not about stoning infidels and non-virginal wives. Blasphemers.

      ISIS also uses this to support their lies about the Quran, that they are following Muhammad — which brainwashes both their followers and (hysterically) the Islamaphobes who also follow ISIS!

      It’s like watching Monty Python!

  24. Someone please explain to me why people who are admittedly not libertarians think they can criticize Reason for supporting Hitlary over Der Drumpf:

    1. Someone explain to me where Reason is supporting Hillary Clinton. And no, thinking Clinton might be marginally better than Trump isn’t “supporting her”, any more than all the people claiming Trump might be better than Hillary are supporting Trump.

    2. Can you explain why being non-libertarian means you shouldn’t criticize libertarians?

      Incidentally, as a libertarian, I claim the right to criticize non-libertarians, too, and I do so with remarkable frequency.

      Do you refuse to criticize other members of your own team or something? Maybe it’s your own herd mentality that needs to be explained.

      One of the reasons I come here is subject my thinking to other smart people for scrutiny. It makes me smarter. I prefer the criticism of smart non-libertarians; unfortunately, the people who disagree with us typically act like trolls when they come here.

    3. Someone please explain to me why people who are admittedly not libertarians think they can criticize Reason for supporting Hitlary over Der Drumpf:

      They are mostly extreme socons who believe that being socially liberal is the same as being a progressive, thus revealing their ignorance of libertarianism since 1969. It’s also how they suffer denial of their compulsive fascism. Many are also in the Paulista Cult.

  25. I should clarify, Sunni Islam has a lot in common with Calvinism–especially the predestination, obviously.

    Shia always strikes me as being more like Catholicism.

      1. When people say they’re fundamentalist Protestants, what they usually mean is that they have a list of beliefs.

        I’m not saying that Catholics don’t also have things they believe, but cultural identity Catholicism is a real thing. It isn’t just about specific points of doctrine. The Virgin of Guadalupe isn’t a point of doctrine, but it’s a cultural identifier that Mexican kids will paint on their low riders. Being Irish isn’t a point of doctrine either, and yet Irish identity for a lot of people is in part tied up with being Catholic.

        Shia is more Catholic like that. In addition, Shia is more about ceremony, and it’s full of saints and martyrs and the veneration of their shrines. The way ISIS goes after Shia processions to shrines is a lot like the way radical Protestants used to go after Catholics for the same kind of thing.

      2. Sunnis are more like fundamentalist Protestants in that what they mean by saying they’re Sunni is typically that they believe certain things. Just one example: I had some Arab Sunni friends take me to a museum display of Islam in West Africa. They were horrified to see that the West Africans venerated the photograph of al-Hajj Malik Sy and treated others like Bob Marley as if they were saints. “These people aren’t really Muslims”, they said. In other words, to them, Islam was less of a cultural identifier and more a list of beliefs. If you didn’t believe those things, you weren’t really a Muslim in their book.

        I should add, evangelical charismatic Christians are typically less about doctrine, too. And Protestant fundamentalists often think of them as being wayward Christians for that reason. To charismatics, Christianity is more of a cultural identifier. To fundamentalist Protestants, it’s more a list of beliefs.

        1. and just who are the islamic mormons?

          1. The Ahmadiyyas?

    1. So, are the Salafists the Puritans ?

      1. Puritans danced and drank alcohol.

        Read sometime about life under the Calvinists in Geneva.

        Musical instruments weren’t allowed in Geneva, and they had religious police that would come search your home on a regular basis to make sure you weren’t backsliding.

        Penalties were extreme.

        1. There is a strong parallel between Wahhabism and extreme Protestantism in aesthetics: both essentially hate beautiful things. Hence why the Saudis are destroying gorgeous ancient mosques and some early Protestants destroyed stain glass windows (giving us the term ‘iconoclast’). Whereas Catholics and Eastern Orthodox regard art as a means of religious reflection, Wahhabis and more rigid Protestants regard art and decoration as sinful distractions from God. It’s pretty amazing actually that you can literally tell when you’ve crossed from the Catholic to the Protestant part of Germany by glancing at the exterior of the cathedrals. From ornate to bland all of a sudden.

          1. Catholics, ever since Thomas Aquinas, reject the belief that Man is fundamentally evil or depraved. Original Sin that most Christians believe was inherited from Adam is still a concept, but its consequences are that Man has to die, that Man has to work in order to live, and that Man has “concupiscence” or a tendency to commit sin. Jesus’ sacrifice “paid” for Adam’s disobedience or “redeemed” Mankind. They don’t believe individual humans have to acknowledge this, since God already has. They only have to not sin, or repent of sin. The sacrament of Baptism is necessary to receive “supernatural grace”, and to enter Heaven, but they fudge that to three kinds of baptism. The actual kind by water, a baptism by fire, which is martyrdom, and a baptism by desire. Which means you desire to be baptized, or would desire it if you knew about it. This is how Aristotle and other pagans got into Renaissance paintings and art, and got chiseled onto churches. “If Aristotle knew about baptism, he totally would have.” And since the soul, according to theologians, was composed of reason and free will, the right use of reason could guide one’s conscience and one’s actions, even if you didn’t know about the Ten Commandments.

  26. You know who else is un-PC… /sarc

    1. I’ll go with Steve Wozniak this time

  27. If your only criterion for supporting a movement is how un-P.C. it is, I guess this sales pitch is for you.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1esrEb9p0Wc

  28. I’m not so sure these fanatics would have had an easy time with the Japanese, they were renowned for the level of cruelty they employed, they love to behead as well. As for the Viet Cong, they were sadistic little bastards with their feces dipped punji stakes and booby traps. And I would put my money on Geronimo or Sitting Bull, the Indians would have scalped the shit out of the Mohammedians.
    Al-Baghdadis last stand at Little Big Horn would have been awesome.

    1. They’d be speaking Japanese in Mecca right now. Japanese were working on nuclear weapons, but Muslim countries were never in a position to do so until years after they were developed in the West. The idea that they’d drop a third bomb is preposterous, they’d have to actually have one, and were too backward to invent one. Nonetheless, if they could get their hands on one they’d use it. But as the Spartans would answer “IF…”

  29. Around 350 BC, King Philip II of Macedon started invading the crap out of Greece. After he had several key footholds under his command, Philip decided to start putting pressure on Sparta, and sent them the following threatening message: “If I win this war, you will be slaves forever.”

    The Spartan’s sent back a single word in reply: “if”.

  30. Totally unknown to anti-Muslim goobers, their “bible” has three testaments. The Torah, New Testament and Quran. So Muslims study the Old Testament barbarities which are mentioned here.

    It’s ONLY Deuteronomy that commands the immediate killing of all infidels, even one’s own spouse and child, stoning to death all women who were not virgins at their wedding and countless other barbarities. ISIS also knows the Israelites committing mass genocide of an entire culture, the Canaanites, that Jews ruled that land for only 300 years over 2000 years ago, and lost it when a civil war created two Jewish states which refused to defend each other from invasion.

    Americans are known to be ignorant of world history. Like the Rhineland Massacres, where Christian Crusaders slaughtered thousands of Jews in the First Holocaust, ironically in Germany, on their way to ejecting the Jews from Jerusalem, Jews who were allowed to return by … Muslims.

    So Americans continue to be brainwashed by the military industrial complex. And ISIS has more than enough evidence of a Judeo-Christian war on Islam. How many more American lives must be sacrificed to all these lies?

    Did I mention Israel’s current military blockade of Palestine, an act of war? Or the Israeli settlements in Palestine , maintained by force in defiance of UN sanctions, following 15 years of military occupation, also an act of war? Who are the aggressors? And who are the suckers?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.