Free Markets, Free People

The end of “tolerance?”

Probably not, but you’ll notice “tolerance” in quotes.  Tolerance, today, seems to mean that no one has a right to “judge” another culture or religion or ethnic group based on their actions or by their “prejudices” – you know, “white privilege” and all that.   That we should all understand that each of these are “equally good”, just “different”.

Thus what happened in France today is just a “different” way of reacting to certain “stimulus”.   We must “understand” what motivates these sorts of actions and …

Well, you can fill in the blank.  Isn’t that the natural end to that sort of “tolerance?”  Putting up with it?

The question is, have we seen enough of this sort of slaughter that we can bring ourselves, as civilizations, to say “that’s bad and NOT to be tolerated” and that all those who are a part of this should be exterminated from the face of the earth?  Hmmm?

Well, you’d think so – or at least you’d think there’d be some sort of an attitude change in general.  I’ll be interested to see how the French react.  The same country that let “youths” burn 10,000 cars a few years ago over the same sort of nonsense.  Props to the French for this time calling it what it is – terrorism.  Islamist terrorism.  At least they’re not trying to put the “workplace violence” tag that the political cowards here in the US draped on the Ft. Hood massacre by an Islamic extremist.

Meanwhile, even with the scope of the tragedy, there are those who would excuse the killers.

Via Hot Air, here is the Financial Times take on the situation:

Two years ago it published a 65-page strip cartoon book portraying the Prophet’s life. And this week it gave special coverage to Soumission (“Submission”), a new novel by Michel Houellebecq, the idiosyncratic author, which depicts France in the grip of an Islamic regime led by a Muslim president.

In other words, Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.

This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.

The other day I pointed out how feminists use the same tactics as the KKK.  This, on the other hand, hits me as the same thing as those who excuse rape by saying, “you know, if you hadn’t have worn that, you probably wouldn’t have been raped”.

Always entertaining to catch this type of a critic in the usual pretzel logic that, in another form, they’re sure to condemn.

Freedom ain’t free – and it is messy and dangerous.  More importantly, you have to fight for it.  And the first step in doing so is being intolerant of anyone who would limit it or take it away – and that includes the murderer’s fellow travelers as well.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

175 Responses to The end of “tolerance?”

  • …publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.

    Yes, yes. MUCH wiser and more pragmatic not to be caricature jihadists, as Erp would say. Why, you simply provoke “push-back” from the acolytes of “peace” who simply loves them some Mo.

    Me? I’ll be “stupid” all I flucking want to be, and won’t be cowed by the pirates of Islam. I will republish EVERY “offensive” cartoon published any time the notion moves me.

    I invite Erp and his ilk to join me, and to put up the evidence he/they did by posting it on their websites. I will do likewise.

    • All of this sort of this “Jihadi gone wild” stuff always seems to recycle me back to that line from “Star Trek 5: The Final Frontier” ..

      Kirk: What does God need with a starship?

      Just what makes this Jihad Joes think that Allah needs their help .. or that God, in his infinite power and wisdom, would use a bunch of assholes to project his power and omnipotence ? These folks aren’t in it for God, but usually for themselves.

  • I can see the Tweets of the apologists now …

    My thoughts are with French Islamists who Raided the Offices of Charlie Hebdo, I hope they didn’t get burned by their hot weapons.

  • Well, the Financial Times should certainly understand that “being stupid” is included in the right to free expression, because the Financial Times is being stupid by the way it throws “being stupid” into the frame of this terrorist attack. No one went and killed the American writer and economist James Glassman when he wrote his book “Dow 35,000” (I think that was the title, but it was his prognostication). He was obviously being stupid when he wrote it and put that title on it.

    In the context of Europe and its approach to Islam, this “silly” magazine was actually being quite courageous, and perhaps fools do rush in where angels fear to tread, and they were being stupid, but they definitely perceived the threat to Western values (such as they are) from Islam and sharia law.

    • I think you’re putting too much thought in response to a weasel worded version of “Maybe he has the right to say it, but he shouldn’t have.” The implication being the magazine should have self-censored. Thereby not putting Financial Times in the awkward position of wanting to come out against Free Speech which will happen eventually on an official level ( like most of the media they haven’t had much use for it in practice.)

    • If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech.

      >>>> No no no! Everyone knows that the BEST examples of freedom of speech are statements that everyone agrees with and finds non-controversial! “Kittens are cute!” – the most powerful champion of free speech EVER.

      • “If the magazine stops just short of outright insults,”

        They must not have read the magazine, because that remark certainly does not apply to Charlie H.

      • I missed this the first time.

        How dare you praise felines? They are disgusting creatures.

        Dogs are loyal. They will put themselves at risk to protect humans. They can be easily trained. And, they will go out in the yard rather than stinking up the house.

      • I missed this the first time.

        How dare you praise felines? They are disgusting creatures.

        Dogs are loyal. They will put themselves at risk to protect humans. They can be easily trained. And, they will go out in the yard rather than stinking up the house.

        I am offended and I demand you retract your praise of cats.

  • Well, if you tune into MSNBC, you’ll find that this whole thing is just a continuation of extremism from all religions. Some ghoul-looking bloviator there said this was just like Falwell suing Hustler Magazine back in the 1980s. (via Ace)

    Got that? Killing twelve people is directly comparable to a lawsuit. Well, if you’re tolerant, I guess.

    • Sally Kohn ✔ @sallykohn
      Follow

      It is not inconsistent to believe in free speech AND be against insulting other people’s faith traditions. #CharlieHedbo
      7:57 AM – 7 Jan 2015

      SO much gob-smacking stupid. So very, very much…

  • … because we ALL KNOW that the best illustration of our God-given right to free speech is having terrorists warn “Shut the hell up or we’ll kill you”, and having the newspapers shut-the-hell-up.

    Oh, no, wait. Got it mixed up. That’s the definition of “submission to Allah”. That’s the Islamists’ version of “– ~WINNING~!!!”

    Or, put another way, “To learn who rules over you – simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize”.

  • The question is, have we seen enough of this sort of slaughter that we can bring ourselves, as civilizations, to say “that’s bad and NOT to be tolerated” and that all those who are a part of this should be exterminated from the face of the earth? Hmmm?

    >>>> Nope. Not yet. But you can see signs it’s getting close – at least among us humans. Among sheep like our political/media class, not so much. But it is coming – a backlash is coming. It’s gonna be ugly.

  • If Europe did not awaken when Muslims raped and pimped-out 1,400 of their children in Rotherham, it never will.

  • Because the ideology is the product of a major world religion, a lot of painstaking pretzel logic goes into trying to explain what the violence does, or doesn’t, have to do with Islam. Some well-meaning people tiptoe around the Islamic connection, claiming that the carnage has nothing to do with faith, or that Islam is a religion of peace, or that, at most, the violence represents a “distortion” of a great religion.

  • The full utility of unarmed first responders was on darkly laughable display yesterday, too.

    “They came, they saw, they ran away.”

  • Also, guys, and not to gratuitously stir anyone up…this is why we SHOULD have some “militarized” police units. No National Guard COULD POSSIBLY have responded to this in a timely way under our system of government.

    • No SWAT team or armored vehicle, either.

      • Nonsense. You’re not seriously going to contend that a SWAT team could not respond effectively, and they are in any way comparable to a NG unit waiting for a call-up order from a governor and THEN mounting a response, are you. Seriously?

        • As best I could find, the attack on CH took about 30 minutes. The average response time of SWAT units seems to be 20-30 minutes *after* being ordered out, which of course depends on reliable notification being received and verified and someone making a decision. Paris has SWAT teams, which don’t seem to have responded in a timely/effective manner since the terrorists got away. So yes, seriously.

    • Some – never said we shouldn’t have ANY.
      My problem is we appear to have too many, and they aren’t used for THIS, they’ve been used to make sure people selling unpasteurized milk don’t threaten world peace.
      To the bicycle cops who showed up, unarmed – well, strikes me they at least showed up – those bikes could have taken them in some other direction.
      Going unarmed into a shooting gallery, they ought to get credit for that at least.

      But I ain’t here to disagree man!

      /Sarc on
      Well yeah I sorta am, right?
      I mean I came to point out what a great big collection of intolerant Islamophobes we’re being, am I right?
      /Sarc off

      Every time we have a slaughter, honor killing, beheading, if we don’t hear that it’s work place violence, we get to hear “it’s a few whackjobs and not the religion”
      and the ponderer’s hardly ever ponder why the religion with the most ‘few whackjobs’ almost ALWAYS turns out to be Islam. They don’t just mysteriously not ponder it, they studiously avoid that honking great big pink bush elephant with the flag of Jihad painted on both sides.
      Go figure.

      /Sarc on again
      There’s a clue in there somewhere I’d swear, there seems to be a commonality.
      If only we could figure out what it was!

      • Kind of the point.

        “Militarized police” has all the precision of meaning that “comprehensive immigration reform” has.

        Properly defined, I’d support both. But today, it seems like terms are intentionally coined to be muddy, and then carefully kept that way.

    • I think if those cartoonists were allowed handguns, the perps might be dead now.

    • Militarized? You mean tanks, APCs, MRAPs, 50-cal guns?

      How would any of those have been appropriate to respond to those attackers?

      And, if you provide such heavy weaponry to little podunk towns and ten to every metro department, how do you justify the expense when there is a 0.001% chance they will ever be useful to counter a terrorist attack? How do you keep bad people from stealing them and using them to carry out mayem? And, how do you keep idiots with badges from smashing down houses with them over DUI warrants or cock fighting?

      In nearly all cases, new law enforcement powers or military toys end up being used in the War on Drugs and not against actual terrorists. Why feed the monstrously evil institution of prohibition?

  • Interesting how the first response of our liberal Defenders-All-That-Is-Good is to blame the victim. I am sure, though, that our stalwart media heroes will not fail to speak truth to power, even if that power grows from the barrel of a gun.

    • Leftist media types are mostly cowards. They put on a facade of bravely “speaking truth to power”, but it’s only as long as they know the supposed power isn’t really going to do anything to them.

      They know, in their gut, that Islamists would cheerfully cut their heads off. They’ve seen it happen to colleagues braver than they are. So, when it comes time to publish “the first draft of history”, they strongly prefer the draft that helps them sleep at night without worrying about a religious fanatic slitting their throat or putting a bullet through their brain.

  • “We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad,” then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said during the September 19, 2012 press briefing, “and obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this.”

    “In other words, we don’t question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it,” Carney continued.

    Carney then went onto link the [Charlie] Hedbo cartoon to the same video the White House claims caused the attacks on the U.S. asset in Benghazi: “And I think that that’s our view about the [‘Innocence Of Muslims’] video that was produced in this country and has caused so much offense in the Muslim world.”

    • Anyone else here offended by these continued depredations?

      How come we never get to hear about all the concern for so much offense being cause in the Western world?
      Oh, right, that’s because the reality is, we don’t round up random muslims in western countries and take revenge on them for things like the Charlie Hebdo attack or the Boston Marathon bombing, or, or, or, or, or

    • Killing 11 people who make jokes for a living is pretty offensive to me. How much more offensive can you get than killing a dozen?

  • But the New York Times wants you to know – this is bad, because now people in Europe might start resenting this sort of thing and reacting to it in a negative way.
    Wow, imagine THAT happening.
    After all, the proper way to react is to display deference to Islam at all times, whether your criticism or commentary is justified or sarcastic.

    What all the asshats are forgetting, ignoring, denying, being stupidly unaware of, is that justifiable criticism is no more acceptable to Islam than unjustifiable criticism and can bring EXACTLY the same reaction from ‘a few whackjobs’

    • NYT is pissing its pants because National Front just won the next election.

    • For the NYT, just as there is no good time to cut government (well, except military spending), there is no good time to point out the barbarities of Islam.

      As someone who studies a lot of cognitive science, I’d say this is exactly the right time to point out the realities of Islam because people are paying attention. Yes, there is danger from tarring with too broad a brush (not everyone who practices Islam is a support of extremist behavior), but there is even more danger in hiding from the truth. Besides the highly visible contingent willing to carry out terrorism, there is a much larger contingent of Muslims who sympathize with the aims of the extremists and support them either tacitly or overtly. We can debate the size of that contingent (I think it’s more than half), but anyone who denies that it exists and is of a substantial size is simply out of touch with reality.

      The reason that contingent exists is simple: their religion tells them it’s OK, or even expected, to act that way. They believe, for example, that anyone who insults Mohammed deserves to be killed, because the Quran has language that can be interpreted that way, and many of their imams tell them outright that this is what the Quran says. That’s why even so-called moderate figures in Islam make such a big deal about how no one is entitled to “insult their religion”. At best, they shrug their shoulders when the terrorists strike, and many of them actively cheer.

      It ought to be obvious to even the most brain-damaged leftist that such a stance about insulting religion is incompatible with a free and open society. But then, leftists don’t really believe in a free and open society, as their continued efforts to control other people’s speech demonstrate. In their mind, insulting someone’s religion shouldn’t be allowed for the same reason that insulting a know-it-all feminist bint shouldn’t be allowed. Neither of those is compatible with genuine free speech.

      • Although I have not read the Koran I have been reading about Islam lately. It seems that Islam is a bit different from Christianity, what most of us think of when we think of religion. None of that “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,…” or “My kingdom is not of this world” stuff. Islam wants it all. It is the duty of Muslims to establish a theocracy. Maybe “moderate” Muslims want a “moderate” theocracy, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

        You would think that those who are terrified of the prospect of someone like Jerry Falwell running things would show a little more concern about the prospect of Muslims running things. But then, rational thought or consistency is not a trait of the left.

        • Andrew McCarthy, who writes at National Review online, if you haven’t read him already, is very good on Islam. (His interest stems from having been the prosecutor of the “Blind Sheik” back in the 1990s.) I think that you also have to look at the enablers of Islam in the West, as you might find them especially in Europe (or even Canada), who have turned criticism of Muslims into “hate speech,” a crime. They’re here in the U.S. too, but we have a First Amendment, so far. Here they use the constraints of political correctness to go after critics of Islam. “Jihadists blow up buildings; the Left destroys entire civilizations.”

          • “but we have a First Amendment, so far”

            Yeah, so far.

            Consider that France is about the only European country where this attack could have taken place. In most of Western Europe Charlie Hebdo would have been shut down and the people running it imprisoned by the government before the terrorists could get to it. Canada too.

    • The newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, in its raucous, vulgar and sometimes commercially driven effort to offend every Islamic piety, including the figure of the Prophet Muhammad, became a symbol of an aggressive French secularism that saw its truest enemy in the rise of conservative Islam in France, which is estimated to have the largest Muslim population in Europe.

      If you juxtaposition, “NYTimes” for “Charlie Hebdo” and “France” with “US” and “Prophet Muhammad” with “Jesus Christ”, I guest we should believe that the Religious Right will be attacking the ‘paper of record’ any time now.

      • I have it on good authority that followers of Jesus Christ have attacked various NYT reporters in their homes!

        Yes, they rang the doorbell and said vicious things such as “Would you accept this pamphlet describing how Jesus is our savior?”

        • Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.

          … they I’m told they changed it to something like this, I’m told …

          Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you drive a Prius, we don’t kill Global Warming believers, but you must convert to solar energy, read the New York Times and cover yourself with ObamaCare,” she recalled.

          …I could have gotten that wrong, though.

  • http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/08/mark-steyn-charlie-hebdo-was-a-target-only-because-the-rest-of-the-media-wouldnt-share-the-risk/

    Exactly. And it is glaringly obvious that even the protesting cartoonists are taking the coward’s way with the content of their work, along with the major newspapers.

    The self-censorship is disgusting. Chickenshits.

  • There are over 2 billion Muslims on the planet. They are not the enemy. There is a small number of Islamic terrorists who abuse the religion for their own hateful agenda. They are the enemy. Those who try to paint Islam out as bad are either ignorant, bigoted or both. In historical terms the West has been far more violent than the Islamic world – communism, the holocaust, WWI, WWII, colonialism, wiping out Native American tribes, enforcing their vision or reality on the planet, stealing from colonies, slavery, etc. Because moving to modernism is difficult. The West has finally reached a point where we’re able to overcome a lot of the flaws of the past and move forward. The Islamic world is just moving into modernism. Some will oppose it – they will use violence. They must be defeated. But a great world religion cannot be defeated – and if we attack the religion, we’ll be pushing its adherents into the camp of the extremists. Because the Islamophobes out there are to me just as bad as the extremists cheering terrorism: Weak minded, frightened, hateful, and pathetic. They more alike than different, but must be defeated utterly and completely.

    Oh and Billy, you are utterly ignorant about Islam. Before teaching a course on Islam and the West I did a lot of research. Islam historically and in the Koran demands that Christians and Jews be treated with respect. It says conversion cannot be forced, and that if one does not want to fight, they should not be harmed. Sure, just as you can find punishments in the Old Testament (you know – death to anyone who says Jehovah, and Exodus condemns any depiction of God, with similar punishments) you can find the same in Islamic texts. But just as Christians and Jews have moved past taking those punishments literally for the modern era, so have most Muslims. Your logic would force you to condemn Christians and Jews because it is “part of their religion.” But religion is what people make it, and most Muslims want to enter the modern world and it’s a process. Anyway, Islam isn’t going away. But that’s nothing to be scared about – Islam will change and is changing as society changes. And only a few crackpots are willing to do violence – if it was the majority, these attacks wouldn’t be so rare! Be frightened or be enlightened. Your choice.

    • Regarding Billy’s mistakes, citations, please.

    • You may be last…..but they will still put you down on the ground and chop your head off when it’s your turn.

      And that’s a comforting thought

    • Be frightened or be enlightened. Your choice.

      OK. Good. PROVE your commitment to the Enlightenment AND your unsupported bullshit in attacking Billy. Publish…on your blog…the Mohammed cartoons, and ask for “enlightened Muslims” to rally to your defense and protect you.

      You stupid, delusional, narcissistic SOS. PUT UP.

    • Before teaching a course on Islam and the West I did a lot of research.

      This would make your idolism of Islam as cogent and accurate as your perversions of physics then.

    • Then where are the Christian radicals that behead people, kidnap women?
      Where are the Buddhist radicals upset because people mocked Buddha for being a fat guy?
      Where are the Protestant radicals that are burning the cast members of Bewitched, or Charmed for portraying witches?
      Oh, RIGHT, there aren’t any!
      Because Islam is the only religion that we tolerate that allows for that kind of crap, points to their holy book and says “well, you see, um, the book allows for us to react, and when we only do it some of the time, we’re being really really open minded and restrained!”
      When the Thugee cult murdered people in the name of their gods they were STAMPED OUT.

      YOU were specifically one of the people I had in mind who can’t explain and won’t explain why we keep having to have this conversation about Radical Islam OVER AND OVER AND OVER as practitioners of Islam again and again and again perpetrate atrocities that are suited to 1114 AD instead of 2014 AD.

      Slavery, waaahahahahahah! Yes, indeed, ONLY western Europe has ever practiced any form of slavery, and you can believe that comfortably, especially if you will ignore the ONGOING actual slavery in extent Islamic countries while talking about an activity that practically every flucking human culture in the world has practiced at one time or another in the past and pretending that Americans OWN the franchise.

      You blithering Flucking idiot – when was the last time anyone STONED anyone for saying Jehovah? When was the last time RADICAL JEWS or RADICAL CHRISTIANS stoned anyone for blaspheming against their religion?
      ONLY your head up your keister progressive moonbat logic allows you to cherry pick all through history and draw a parallel from actions 1000+ years ago to actions that happened YESTERDAY and THEN have the gall to equate them.

      Only a few crackpots….,again, and again, and again, and not HISTORICALLY, moron, CURRENTLY.

      And how do YOU know what kind of knowledge Billy has about Islam? Just the other day you were moaning about how we project our views on other people and claim we know what they do or don’t think and know. Yet here you are, doing exactly that, are you at all self aware?
      You READ about it? Oh, goodness me, none of us could have EVER done that, only you could manage it. And what’s more, only YOU could claim to be an expert as a result. Honestly, only you WOULD claim to be an expert as a result, because you think researching it for a couple weeks, tops, is all it takes.
      What a gigantic fraud you are.

      • You blabbering. I have studied the histories of both Islam and the West, and there is as much violence (really more) in the West, and a lot of tolerance historically in Islam (including tolerance of Hindus and Buddhists after they moved into India). When the Christians took Jerusalem in the crusades they said “convert or die,” and slaughtered Muslims. Christians and Jews could live in the vastly superior (in technology, philosophy, learning and tolerance) Islamic world by just paying an extra tax. And of course six million Jews were exterminated by good western Christians.

        Now, it’s true that the Arab world did not modernize, thanks to the culture of the Ottoman Empire. This is a POLITICAL problem, not rooted in the religion. The religion is USED by those with political anti-western ambitions. They must be defeated. But to blame Islam or attack the religion is to put yourself in the company of those who would cheer lead cutting off people’s heads.

        Since you’re not going to eliminate a religion anyway, the key is to defeat extremists, and to recognize that most Muslims will gladly be our allies in that effort if we recognize that the extremists contradict Islam and its traditions. One reason I teach about Islam in every class (in a school training future teachers) is I want to work as hard as possible to make sure that disease of Islamophobia is nipped in the but.

        • I blabbering?
          You just keep repeating the same rubbish over and over Scott.
          Repetition works well in math table memorization, but if you’re telling yourself that 5×5 = 40 that won’t make it so.
          So too with your endless repetition of the sins of Christians and Westerners passed.
          It’s 2014 skippy, try and keep up.
          The Charlie Hebdo attack was yesterday, not the day after the fall of Acre.

          You keep wandering back to the Crusades and no, the NAZI’s were lousy ‘Christians’.
          By definition Scott, you don’t get to be a good Christian by slaughtering people, that’s what we learned back there during the enlightenment. If it was ‘good work’ then when the war was over you’d think the other ‘Christians’ would have rewarded them with parties or something at Nuremberg, and yet the only party they received was a rope necktie party. So, obviously they weren’t viewed as ‘good Christians’ at all by the other Christians. If we loved what they did so much we’d all wear Chaplain mustaches and name our kiddies Adolf.

          Just pay the extra tax, yes, that’s all there was to it, though historically that is not all there is to it, but you go ahead and tell yourself with your expert repetitions that that’s how it worked.

          At no point in time will this penetrate your shields, but Islam IS as much politics as it is religion. You cannot separate the two and be a good Muslim as written in the book. It’s by design. Real, honest to Allah Muslim experts, raised in Islam and studying the Koran have said as much. Now I get that your study lets you see it different, and being you you know more than they do, but some of us think perhaps that’s a skewed view.

          It’s NOT just a religion, you can’t leave it at home – 5 times a day you are reminded of it in the Islamic world. For an entire month, if you are a good Muslim you will not eat between sunrise and sunset, visitors to those countries are cautioned not to make pig faces of themselves outside their accommodations because the locals are a bit on edge from not eating all day. That is NOT just a religion, it IS your life. You don’t get to put your God in a box until Sunday morning and go visit him and stare blankly at the vaulted ceiling while the minister discusses the upcoming Bean Supper they’re holding next week. There is no separation of Church and State mandated by law.

          You will pray at dawn, at noon, mid afternoon, dusk, and at lights out.
          You are constantly, constantly reminded – Allah wills everything, your very conversation will be peppered with invocations to God to watch over you, to grant you things, to watch over others, and things will be done as God wills.

          Most muslims? done a survey have you?

          Here’s some numbers from Pew (and others) (they DO surveys, in case you’re unfamiliar with what they do, and I know they’re not as good as you, but hey, maybe, ya know?)
          35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
          42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
          22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
          29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
          61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
          32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
          41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
          83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
          62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
          42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
          A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
          (Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
          Pew Research (2013): At least 1 in 4 Muslims do not reject violence against civilians (study did not distinguish between those who believe it is partially justified and never justified).
          Pew Research (2013): Only 57% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of al-Qaeda. Only 51% disapprove of the Taliban. 13% support both groups and 1 in 4 refuse to say.
          al-Arabiya: 36% of Arabs polled said the 9/11 attacks were morally justified; 38% disagreed; 26% Unsure
          Gallup: 38.6% of Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified (7% “fully”, 6.5% “mostly”, 23.1% “partially”)
          40% of Indonesians approve of violence in defense of Islam.
          Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
          43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
          38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
          15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
          13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
          12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
          7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
          Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
          86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
          30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
          76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
          51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
          World Public Opinion: 81% of Egyptians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country
          76% of Pakistanis want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country
          49% (plurality) of Indonesians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country
          76% of Moroccans want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country
          Pew Research (2010): 82% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
          70% of Jordanian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
          42% of Indonesian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
          82% of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers
          56% of Nigerian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
          Pew Research (2010): 77% of Egyptian Muslims favor floggings and amputation
          58% of Jordanian Muslims favor floggings and amputation
          36% of Indonesian Muslims favor floggings and amputation
          82% of Pakistanis favor floggings and amputation
          65% of Nigerian Muslims favor floggings and amputation
          Middle East Quarterly: 91 percent of honor killings are committed by Muslims worldwide.
          Pew Research (2013): Large majorities of Muslims favor Sharia. Among those who do, stoning women for adultery is favored by 89% in Pakistanis, 85% in Afghanistan, 81% in Egypt, 67% in Jordan, ~50% in ‘moderate’ Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, 58% in Iraq, 44% in Tunisia, 29% in Turkey, and 26% in Russia.
          Pew Research (2011): Muslim-Americans four times more likely to say that women should not work outside the home.
          Pew Research (2011): 49% of Muslim-Americans say they are “Muslim first” (26% American first)
          Pew Research (2011): 21% of Muslim-Americans say there is a fair to great amount of support for Islamic extremism in their community.
          38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans

          Argue with the numbers Scott unless you think 5×5 = 40 because you’ve been repeating it over and over.

          • You poor ignorant sucker. You scared little boy. The fact is, you can’t defeat Islam. You can help the moderates who call on the real Islamic tradition to defeat the extremists. To do that, you have to lose the Islamophobia. If you don’t, you’re no better than the extremists.

          • To do that, you have to lose the Islamophobia. If you don’t, you’re no better than the extremists.

            A phobia is an irrational fear. Looking at the facts and describing serious and dangerous problems is less a phobia than your inane prattle about the “tea party” “extremists”. It is far more rational than the gun grabbers who have conniptions over the idea that a redneck with a pickup truck might be able to go to a store and buy a modern rifle with composite materials.

            You may have read books about Islam, regurgitating uncritical, idealistic propaganda, but I’ve had many associations with Muslims. I’ve seen the good and the bad, and your naivete is astounding.

            But again, there are 12-13 dead, many more critical, and before they can even be autopsied, you’re scrambling to barf up more of the same apologist nonsense.

            Have some sense of proportion.

          • Yeah, whatever Erb.
            Can’t argue against the number can ya?
            Yeah, I knew that would happen. Anyone who bothers to read anything you write knew it.

            Gedankenexperiment – work with me here boy.
            Assume that the percentage of Muslim’s who are radicals is a mere .005% of the total muslim population.
            At 2 BILLION Muslims that’s 10, MILLION radicals. Million, see that number, that has 6 zeros after the 10.
            I know you’re kinda light on the sciency stuff, but it’s kinda like your paycheck only with 4 more zeroes tacked on, you can grasp that, right?

            I’m gonna say that number 10 million numbers is too high, others may disagree, but this is my gedankenexperiment and they can have their own.

            Okay, assume that the total is .00005 – now we drop down to 10,000 radicals, and that number we already know is too low because of all the whackjobs that are in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Palestine and Yemen and Libya, murdering each other (and any Jews who pass by) in the name of God.

            So we already know the percentage of radicals is higher than .00005 don’t we.

            Contrast then, that number somewhere then between 10,000 and 10,000,000 of radical muslims with –
            Baader- Meinhof, on it’s best days, had an estimated 150 to 170 members. They launched 296 bomb attacks between 1973 and 1995. Europe was afraid of these folks.
            The Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland, currently estimated by the Police Service of Northern Ireland to have between 250 and 300 active members.

            You recognize either of those organizations? You understand the amount of time and money spent on them, and the fear they generated and generate in Europe?
            Speaking of fear, and Europe – what’s with all those enlightened Europeans getting all right wing these days Scott, is that me being afraid and causing that?
            Aren’t they more cosmopolitan, more advanced, more forward thinking? You know you’d almost think we didn’t get all your bad ‘good Christian’ Germans rounded up after 1945.

            I’m not afraid of Islam Scott, we’ve been over this, because if need be and they keep at it, we’ll finally get angry enough to North Korea their little countries with no fly/no travel. They’ll ship their oil out, we’ll ship our food in, and we won’t listen to whiners like you complain about our having irrational fears until they knock it off and demonstrate they can live with the rest of us without randomly assaulting normal people doing nothing to harm them or their religion apart from perceived ‘insults’.

            Eventually they’ll change their ways and they’ll have the reformation that they are long overdue to have.

            You, on the other hand, will go to your grave as you are,
            a twit.

          • Prendergast, I have to laugh at you, you poor scared fool. You’re in love with your ignorance, so I won’t bother trying to help you learn. Thankfully, your kind of thinking is dying out.

          • Erb, I constantly laugh at you, because you argue like a 6 year old.

            Hey, do you suppose your dad can beat up my dad?

          • “the real Islamic tradition”

            Tradition. I think that word does not mean what you think it does. The terrorists ARE calling on Islamic tradition. As opposed to medernists who OPPOSE those traditions.

          • “so I won’t bother trying to help you learn”

            I have to admit you have helped me learn. Every time I read one of your claims that sound doubtful to me, i.e. everything but your name, I do some research to check the accuracy. Over the years I have learned that there is a very high probability that you are full of crap. Most, if not all, of your claims are outright falsehoods, distortion, half-truth, etc.

        • And of course six million Jews were exterminated by good western Christians.

          I LOVE it when you get all wee-weed up, and show your ass like you have here! You are SO much fun to punk out.

          Nazis were NOT “good western Christians” by any remote stretch. They HATED traditional religion. What they were was BIG GOVERNMENT Collectivists, closely aligned with yourself in terms of “thinking”. Interestingly, they and the Muslims of the period found happy-happy common ground on the issue of exterminating a whole religion/ethnicity, and the Muslims of the day still work diligently on that, along with extirpating any hint of Christianity from the areas they control.

          What’s ALSO fun to consider with your Collectivists and their barbarity is that Muslims in the former Soviet Union and Red China were and are killers even in those terribly repressive and murderous regimes.

          You just can’t keep a real zealot down, can ya…??? And their religion DOES promote zealotry, dunnit? You lying sack of shit…

          Speaking of which, have you republished the Mohammed cartoons yet on YOUR website, relying on the enlightened Muslims to protect and shield you from the “extremists”…???

          When are you going to do that, Mr. Enlightenment?

        • and a lot of tolerance historically in Islam (including tolerance of Hindus and Buddhists after they moved into India).

          You should do a little bit more reading, then, because you have completely overlooked the entire history of Islamic Conquest — which started with Muhammed himself.

          There really isn’t a history of tolerance in Islam. You’re fooling only yourself if you think there was.

        • “(including tolerance of Hindus and Buddhists after they moved into India).”

          LOL! “moved into India” I assume you are talking about the Islamic invasions starting in the 8th century.

          “six million Jews were exterminated by good western Christians.”

          Flat out lie. You know better.

          “thanks to the culture of the Ottoman Empire. This is a POLITICAL problem, not rooted in the religion.”

          Which begs the question, why did the Ottomans not modernize? And, your claim of a separation between potlitics and Islam belies your claimed knowledge of Islam.

          ” if we recognize that the extremists contradict Islam and its traditions”

          The problem is that they don’t contradict it, anymore than Catholics contradict Christianity and its traditions because they are not Protestants.

        • the French have started to ask themselves who is responsible for enabling these cretins in the first place. And rightfully so, I think. Already certain groups within France have started taking matters into their own hands, and I’m beginning to suspect that that kind of response is long overdue, given the government’s lack of ability to control the explosion of Islam in that country.

          Here at home, our own news people, (and I use the term advisedly), are all a Twitter about what group of radical Islam these particular terrorists were attached to… Were they part of al Qaeda? Were they part of Isis? And so on.

          First of all, the answer to that question hardly matters anymore. The outcome is the same. So too, is the problem. And the problem of course is Islam itself. It’s long past time to start treating the problem as such, and stop trying to placate them. There is no placating them, there is no compromising with them, there is no negotiation with them. Playing whack-a-mole, with this group or that group, simply isn’t going to solve the issue.

          There is but one response. It’s time we took it. The French people, if not their government, have already started coming to this conclusion. How much longer before we come to the same conclusion? How many more people need to die?

          And don’t give me that I’m being overly critical of Islam. Voltaire once said that if you want to see who’s in charge, look closely at who you can’t criticize. Our governments, and those on the left, seem unable to criticize Islam as such. That’s a problem I don’t share.

          And by the way, while I do have the editor open, how bad are the these terrorists, that they lost to the French of all people? And how is it that the French have more of a spine then we?

          It’s only a matter of time before the American people start asking that very question.

    • The problem with Islam is that its not a tiny handful of people who take the Koran literally but hundreds of millions. And those numbers are increasing with Wahhabi schools being founded by Saudi Arabia.

      Secondly, while you can find various quotes in the Koran that seem to suggest playing nice with people of the book (note, Erb, that doesn’t include Buddhists or atheists, so how useful is that? ) but there are also sections that are very violent towards them. Also “respect” to me would mean equal treatment of my religion and no special punitive tax rate. But I guess Erb thinks that, say, separate water fountains and schools would be “respectful”, too.

      Thirdly, in practice Islam spread by the sword, not just peaceful missionaries.

      Finally, Erb is asking that we believe he understands Islam and its holy texts more than actual Islamists who memorize the entire Koran and actually speak Arabic.

      Think about that for a moment.

      I’d also like to see his bibliography. Did he read any Salafist texts? Wahabbi texts?

      • If you’ve studied Islamic thinkers (I mention Iqbal in my blog today, but there have been many), you’d realize that the entire religious tradition is contrary to the thinking of the extremists. And even conservative Muslims are abhored by those chopping off heads and engaging in this kind of violence. If it were really hundreds of millions, the terror attacks would be far more frequent! Most Muslim scholars oppose the extremists, and condemn their actions! As a teacher I make it a point in all my classes to educate students on what Islamic traditions really are – it is important we understand the truth and don’t get fooled by those who would like to make out a great world religion to somehow be bad. The religious, philosophical traditions of the Islamic world often surpassed those of Christian Europe. We cannot defeat the extremists, help the vast moderate majority, and not give in to sniveling fear.

        • In his speech, Iqbal emphasized that unlike Christianity, Islam came with “legal concepts” with “civic significance,” with its “religious ideals” considered as inseparable from social order: “therefore, the construction of a policy on national lines, if it means a displacement of the Islamic principle of solidarity, is simply unthinkable to a Muslim.” Iqbal thus stressed not only the need for the political unity of Muslim communities, but the undesirability of blending the Muslim population into a wider society not based on Islamic principles.

          He thus became the first politician to articulate what would become known as the Two-nation theory—that Muslims are a distinct nation and thus deserve political independence from other regions and communities of India. However, he would not elucidate or specify if his ideal Islamic state would construe a theocracy, even as he rejected secularism and nationalism.

          Why do YOU reckon he was bashful about being clear he wanted a theocracy, Erp, you lying (first to yourself) sack of shit?

          • Is anyone surprised that Ragspierre easily found a citation to show that the man Scott holds up as an exemplar turns out to have made some outrageous statements completely discrediting Scott’s core thesis?

          • Erb’s “core thesis,” always, is that lying is easier than actually knowing anything, that his real marks, his students, will not check, and if they did they would know better than to confront him with it. If anyone not subject to his academic authority checks, it’s easy to just lie some more as he attacks and/or ignores facts. Then he pushes his magic reset button, and he acts like nothing happened at all. Then the cycle begins anew.

        • “Most Muslim scholars oppose the extremists, and condemn their actions!”

          Al-Bagdadi is a muslim scholar. So is Zarqawi.

          So are the guys who wrote the fatwas against Rushdie.

          Of course, there are more moderate scholars.

          But the issue is 1.6 billion x 10% = 160 million…5% = 80 million, you get the idea.

    • Also, leading off with a factual error is pretty bad:

      “Approximately 23% of the world’s population is Muslim. Current estimates conclude that the number of Muslims in the world is around 1.6 billion.”

      You’re only off by 25% and 400 million people.

      • What, you wanted him to get FACTS in his statement?
        I’m sure he FEELS his numbers are right, and that’s what matters.

        He’s busy battling bigots, there’s no time for fact checking here!

    • Let’s talk about that slavery thing some more, expert man.

      • Who ended slavery by the west? Good western people and western navies. Who ended fascism and nazism and the holocaust? Western militaries. Who ended Japanese militarism? Western armies. Who ended communism in Eastern Europe? Western success and the good citizens of those countries, who really are westerners. Which former colonies are today decent places to live? The ones that absorbed western ideals. Now exactly what Professor Pollyanna is trying to illustrate I am not sure, other than perhaps the Islamic world won’t be rid of its head-choppers, colonialists and slavers until (a) they embrace western ideals or (b) a western military does a Japan on them.

        • He does kinda imply that doesn’t he?
          Meanwhile what he wants is to let the dear children run around the house until they grow up some more, and we’re supposed to tolerate the broken windows & dishes and tortured pets until they get there.

          He has proven, again and again, he’s no student of history, or human nature.

          • It’s funny how people go to great lengths to try to minimize the violent and horrific history of the West and then claim Islam is bad. You guys are a caricature. Luckily, the education system is making sure your anti-rational approach does not hold sway.

          • It’s funny how people go to great lengths to try to minimize the violent and horrific history of the West and then claim Islam is bad

            >>> The beheadings, it’s an abhorrent act, don’t misunderstand me. But what about the British in Malaya in the 1950s?

            LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

          • Did any of us deny that Western history has been violent?

            And have we minimized any Western history? Not that I see.

            A great many of us are students of history, and you clearly are not Scott. Again and again you trot out a history that even Wikipedia would find wanting.

            Unlike you, who clear have the time sense of the average golden retriever, we recognize the difference between the Crusaders sacking Jerusalem in 1099 and
            the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday January 6th, 2014, some odd 915 years LATER.

            What we’re pointing out is that our history from a religious standpoint has ceased burning at the stake, stoning, beheading, and constant counter attacks justified by ‘insults’ to our various Gods.

            Whereas the religion of peace adherents get twisted over cartoons, mostly seen by people only in countries foreign to Islam that the vast majority of their believers will never see.

            On the other hand we were told ‘we’ stirred them up in Libya because 1 guy in our country produced a video that was insulting to their prophet.
            So we had to acknowledge that ‘we’ caused the attack on our embassy.

            Let’s look at that argument for a moment shall we?
            They, allegedly, were rioting in Benghazi because of the actions of ONE, dare I say radical guy posting a movie on the internet from the United States.
            Whereas WE are not expected to do jack all after a “few radicals” attacked our embassy.
            You see the problem here?
            They will condone attacks on utter innocents on the basis of the insulting actions of 1 man in a country and we’re bigoted fear mongers for pointing that out.

            Another of your stupid arguments – let’s go back to your example Christian NAZI party killing the Jews.
            And what happened to that party Scott? Did the rest of the world tolerate their barbarous activities in Europe?
            Why, NO, they were destroyed, their empire LITERALLY leveled and laid waste. Their party torn out branch and root and executed, punished and forbidden to exist.
            So using them as an example of how the West dealt with such a threat we see that annihilation was our response.
            So be very careful before you go tossing NAZIs around as an example of the West without reflecting on how the West handled the problem of the murderous NAZI party.

            Idiot.

          • Professor Pollyanna points out various dark episodes of Western history and then thinks that pointing out that these were all remedied by westerners themselves, often through extreme hardship and loss of life, is somehow playing down the significance of these episodes. Are we starting to lose our marbles, dear Prof Pollyanna?

          • It’s funny how people go to great lengths to try to minimize the violent and horrific history of the West and then claim Islam is bad.

            It amazes me that you don’t know the difference between “past” and “present”

    • With the exception of Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins, why does every liberal/”progressive”/socialist scramble to praise Islam and Muslims while journalists who died bravely are not yet cold?

      This is like rushing out to praise the good works of the majority of fraternities on the news that a woman claiming she was raped is still in the hospital being examined.

      While not actually blaming the victim, it’s disrespectful as all hell. At least wait a respectful period before you exploit a tragedy for your banal and pathetically rambling pontifications.

      Was a mosque shot up? Were Muslim journalists slaughtered? No, then STFU about the “poor Muslims”.

    • ” Before teaching a course on Islam and the West I did a lot of research”

      Frankly, I don’t believe you. And watching “Syriana” doesn’t count. I have done only a little research myself and what I read is a bit different from what you claim.

      “the Koran demands that Christians and Jews be treated with respect.”

      Sure, just as Negros were treated with respect in the south not so long ago. As long as we are willing to ride in the back of the bus, keep our thoughts to ourselves, not have a vote, pay extra taxes, etc.,. .

      “But just as Christians and Jews have moved past taking those punishments literally for the modern era, so have most Muslims”

      Except for places like Saudi Arabia, etc.

    • When I start seeing more islamist militants frog marched to jail in their host countries, I will consider it a minority problem with the religion.

    • Erb case study in National Self-Hatred and ensuing Xenophilia and accompany apolo-gism.

    • yes, Scott, we can and must defeat Islam. Of course, that means actually having the testosterone to do the job. That’s something that you fail in right at the off.I noticed an article earlier this evening, that you may be able to learn something from, but I doubt it. It’s a comment on how to defeat Islam….

      Lt. Col. Ralph Peters tonight gave a detailed plan to Bill O’Reilly on how he would fight terror.

      “One: You accept that you are in a war. Two: You name the enemy, Islamist terrorists. Three: You get the lawyers off the battlefield […] you accept there will be collateral damage and you do not apologize for it. You do not nation build, you don’t try to hold ground. You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them, you do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows. If in five or 10 years, they reconstitute and you gotta go back, you go back and do the same thing, and you never, never, never send American troops into a war you don’t mean to win,” Peters said.

      Col. David Hunt said that there must be economic pressure in addition to the military campaign that Peters detailed. Hunt said that just killing terrorists has not worked.

      “Killing them is the only thing that works,” Peters fired back.

      and that really is the truth of the matter. Its the only thing that works. The question is do we wait until we have another attack here in the States, before we start protecting ourselves by doing precisely as Peters suggests.

      oh, I’m quite sure that you and your Realtor will start talking about how I’m some kind of an armchair general. But before you start down that road, maybe you’d better explain how placating Islam has worked so well for the French.

  • Has the West responded yet with an appropriately stern hashtag? We need to show these bastards that they won’t win!

  • As a mark of courtesy to “peaceful, moderate Muslims” we always stick in some throwaway line like ” … (not everyone who practices Islam is a support of extremist behavior), but … ”

    To which I would add:

    The thing about “peaceful”, “moderate” Muslims is: THEY (themselves, individually) may be all for freedom of religion, speech, etc; THEY may be willing to abide by Western secular law; THEY may be willing to acculturate to our language, customs, mores, festivals, education, and all-that-is-American (or, “Western”, or “Liberal” in the old sense) – – –
    BUT…
    There is no, repeat, *NO* guarantee that their children and grandchildren will also become Americanized/ Westernized. As it turns out, MOST of these ***ing jihadis have come from well-to-do immigrant families who SEEM to have assimilated well. But when their offspring go looking for “meaning” in their lives, they quite often find it in the Koran.

    And since the literal words “Kill the Unbeliever wherever you find him” (etc, etc, etc) are right there in The Holy Book –which is Allah’s Eternally Perfect Plan for Mankind; it can never be modified or criticized or re-interpreted, it can only be Submitted to– the next generation of True Believers will start doing the same damn thing all over again.

    The ***ONLY*** place for Islam and its believers (even the “peaceful” and “moderate” ones) is somewhere FAR –*VERY* FAR– AWAY from the First World a/k/a Western Civilization.

    So, uhmmmm. . . How are we gonna do that?

    • Silly, you’re quote from the Koran was Muhammad a general commanding his forces right before a battle. It is abused by extremists on both sides, but in traditional Islamic thought embraced by almost all Muslims, it is CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE that Muhammad said Christians and Jews deserve special respect. They worship the right God, he said, even if they don’t recognize the Prophet. And this was true throughout history. The Islamic world has always had a thriving Christian and Jewish community. Zoroastrians were also granted this status (even in Iran Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians have status in parliament), and similar efforts were made with Hindus and Buddhists. Historically the Islamic world was multi-cultural and tolerant.

      Anyway, Islam is here, Muslim populations are growing, and there’s nothing you can do about it. You can whine in fear, or recognize that maybe your bigotry is unwarranted, and work with others to build understanding between communities (this is going on all over Europe and the US, with far, far, far more frequency than attacks). You have no other options – anger and fear = impotence.

      • By the way, the battle was against the Quarysh. Muhammad’s teachings focused on social reform, especially improving the status of women and the poor. That was a threat and the Quarysh (Muhammad’s own tribe, who ran the Kabbah in Mecca which was a pilgrimage destination because they had idols representing hundreds of gods there) tried to kill Muhammad. He barely got out OK, and went to Yathrib, where he was invited to settle disputes. The Meccans tried to destroy his group (there was also competition with Yathrib, which was renamed Medina), and there were a number of battles before Muhammad marched back into Mecca and the people converted. He wasn’t a pacifist like Jesus, but really interested in social reform and promoting equality and freedom. I suspect many of you have not truly educated yourself about Islam. There are bad things one can find – though if you take into account the culture at the time, you’ll see that in the Christian world as well – sometimes much worse. It’s true we cannot tolerate violence and extremism, or give up our ideals through self-censorship. But attacking Islam is just ignorant.

        • Interesting and I missed it earlier… Professor Pollyanna claims Christianity was founded by a pacifist and Islam by a leftist. No wonder Erb is so keen on defending one faith.

      • “I suspect many of you have not truly educated yourself about Islam”
        You read and speak Arabic, right Scott?
        And are conversant enough with the nuance of the written words, right?
        Oh, wait, no, you don’t do ya Mr. expert.

        Zoroastrians and Jews in Iranian Parliment – oh, really?
        TWO freaking seats out of 290. 5 seats if we throw in the Christian reps. Now that’s what I call representation! So meaningful!
        http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/14/opinion/choksy-iran-zoroastrian/

        Ain’t wikipedia great?
        “On the other hand, senior government posts are reserved for Muslims. All minority religious groups, including Sunni Muslims, are barred from being elected president. Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian schools must be run by Muslim principals. Compensation for death paid to the family of a non-Muslim was (by law) less than if the victim was a Muslim. Conversion to Islam is encouraged by entitling converts to inherit the entire share of their parents’ (or even uncle’s) estate if their siblings (or cousins) remain non-Muslim. Iran’s non-Muslim population has fallen dramatically. For example, the Jewish population in Iran dropped from 80,000 to 30,000 in the first two decades of the revolution. By 2012, it had dwindled below 9,000.”
        Whooo hoooo!!!! I love the smell of religious freedom and tolerance in the morning don’t you?
        Didja know, Cuba is on the Human Rights commission at the UN! – a lot of people make gestures to freedom and tolerance in the same way a hooker can put on a nun’s robe.

        How exactly does that snorkel of yours work, I mean, your head is so far up your ass you must be using a snorkel to breath, but I can’t quite figure where the actual air intake end is – is it one of those quantum physics things? A Klien bottle? What?

        It is a puzzle.

        • I mean I’m fighting against the ignorant bigotry you espouse, and I think I’m pretty effective. I want to eradicate your kind of hate!

          • Yep, it’s working Scott, you keep at it.
            Why you’re doing such a great job that so far no Americans have rounded up any Muslims and beheaded them.
            That’s all you that prevented that, you be um, AuntieHate Man.
            I started out with the really original and catchy name AntiHate Man, but you’re way more of an Auntie really and the costume with the wig and hat pins and day dress and flats will fit your personality so much better.

            Here’s an idea, go bring your progressive views to a nice university in, I don’t know, Pakistan maybe, or Sudan, or Egypt.
            Think how much more of an expert you’ll be on Islam when you’re done.
            You can try your AuntieHate powers on the various sects, see if you can get the Shia and Sunni to stop their fighting.
            You can send back periodic reports to let us know how your hate eradication efforts are going.

          • By the way, I’ll assume Klein bottle for that snorkel, will that work?

      • “The Islamic world has always had a thriving Christian and Jewish community.”

        Until now? Yeah, this “Arab spring” modernization process is working out real well for all the Jews and Christians in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, etc.

        Why does “the religion of peace” have a general who waged war to spread his religion as its prophet, while those murdering Christians have someone who let himself be crucified?

        • because Mohammed wasn’t a pacifist! He was …
          what was it….
          hang on….
          “really interested in social reform and promoting equality and freedom.”

          And you bring equality, and freedom and especially social reform
          through war.
          Everybodies knows this!
          Freedom, equality, social reform, those principles are anathema to Pacifists or something.

          Look look, it all makes sense if you’ll just learn to say the words and try hard not to understand what they mean.
          Stop asking so many questions okay?
          We have a lot of course material to cover this semester and it’s distracting to the other hard working members of this class, and unfair to them if you waste our time with silly questions!

  • Erb, you don’t know anything about Islam. Not about its history. Not about its doctrine.

    You don’t know anything about it because you choose not to know. But I hasten to add that you have made that choice so many times about so many things, besides Islam, that it’s probably the case that you are no longer capable of grasping the truth about anything.

    And nobody cares.

    • And yet I teach it to future teachers, who will shape the minds of the next generation. LOL!

      • They will no doubt be shaping minds when they ask our children “can I supersize that for you sir?”

      • “And yet I teach it to future teachers, who will shape the minds of the next generation. LOL!”
        Just like the average instructor in Die Hitler-Jugend eh?

      • If your university was an appliance store you would be charged with consumer fraud for knowingly selling toasters that can’t make toast. But, speaking of appliance stores, your “future teachers” will be lucky if they can get work in one. I see a lot of bright kids working the floor at Best Buy. They perhaps have the advantage of never having their minds sucked dry by a dipshit academic sponge like you.

      • “Submission today! Submission tomorrow! Submission forevah…!!! We can get along with these people…!!!”

      • Next time you’re in front of your class Scott thinking about teaching future generations you’re going to ‘hear’ my voice.
        “Just like the average instructor in Die Hitler-Jugend”.
        Like Islam, it’s not going away now.

  • Mr. Erb said, ” … He wasn’t a pacifist like Jesus, but really interested in social reform and promoting equality and freedom …”

    Haw-haw-haw, har-de-har, ho-ho-ho-ho, =cough= , gasp!

    Sweetie. Please.

    The only thing ol’ Mo was promoting was pillage, plunder, murder, booty, captives, slaves, and his pick of the nubile women. For merely being the “Prophet”, he commandeered 1/5 of whatever his men took. He did the same thing OUR Dear Leader does: he talked out of both sides of his mouth. Half of his lies were peaceful and sound “reasonable” (but those were the early lies and most of his fellow Meccans ignored him); the other half of his lies came later, and were to urge his men-at-arms to go back out into battle and risk their lives in order to win him more wealth, more women and slaves, and more converts for his new “religion” (after killing all the men in a given town, then threatening THEIR neighboring villages, quite often the new targets would convert out of fear – then ol’ Mo’, Holy Prophet that he was, would take their “zakat” money and leave their women and children alone. Delightful example of social reform, etc, etc, per above.)

    You really need to go to
    ProphetOfDoom.net
    (subtitled “Islam’s Terrorist Dogma in Mohammed’s Own Words”)
    or
    TheReligionOfPeace.com
    or
    JihadWatch.org/
    or
    GatesOfVienna.net
    or
    MyPetJawa.mu.nu
    or
    DanielPipes.org
    and get some hint of what the REAL Islam has been doing for the last 1400 years. (PS- tiny hint: same damn stuff they did to the USA on 9-11-2001, to Spain in 2004 (the rail bombings), to London in 2005 (the tube bombings), to Bali (bombings) in 2002 and 2005, to India (Mumbai terror attack of 2008), plus the ongoing car-b-ques in France, the epidemic of rape in various Scandinavian countries, etc, and on, and on, and ON……)

    • You’re just an ignorant bigot. As an educator, I spend time trying to make sure students don’t fall for your kind of hateful ignorance. I have no respect for your type, but I am glad I’m working daily to eradicate your kind of thinking.

      • And you’ve been reduced to a slobbering, name-calling buffoon, AGAIN demonstrated to be a delusional, self-aggrandizing mediocrity who would have to do some serious training to qualify as a “lite-weight”.

        Religions are what people make of them.

        Another of your now-famous vacuities, which at least make us laugh while shaking our heads in pity and disgust.

        When you republish the Mohammed cartoons on your blog, come and let us know. THAT would be one of the very few things that could induce me to reward you with a click.

      • As normal real people we continually make you look like a pompous idiot.

      • You keep repeating the same libelous accusation of bigotry and phobias. Again, bigotry involves ignorance or a refusal to acknowledge facts in contrast. A phobia involves an irrational fear.

        Except the people you call those names don’t exhibit such behavior, that I’ve seen.

        Why aren’t you devoting your time and effort to lecture everyone about freedom of the press, meeting words and pictures with non-violent reactions, and extolling the courage of the Charlie Hebdo artists and editors? Why is it so much more important to you to repeat uncritical propaganda about Islam, when a strict interpretation of Islam (as practiced in many countries around the world) inspired these murderers to enforce Islamic code?

        Also, why aren’t you, as a “wise leftist” writing articles about the need for women’s rights in the Muslim world? While your ilk bleats out “war on women” when Republicans fight the mandate to pay for female employees’ contraception, hundreds of millions of women are forced to wear restrictive clothing, banned from leaving the home without a male escort, banned from schools, banned from driving, banned from having control of their own lives. Shouldn’t you liberals be marching in the streets demanding freedom for women in Saudi Arabia “NOW!”? Shouldn’t you liberals be entering Islamic centers to interrupt their brunches to bring attention to the plight of oppressed Muslim women, instead of entering into “white spaces” like brunches to bring attention to police racism?

        Shouldn’t the rights of hundreds of millions of women oppressed by Muslim men be of far greater priority than all the rest?

        • Shouldn’t you liberals be entering Islamic centers to interrupt their brunches to bring attention to the plight of oppressed Muslim women

          Erb will probably say “check your privilege” but I am pretty sure the term you are looking for is “Islamophobia”.

  • Our dear Doctor Doubledown, aka Professor Pollyanna, is insisting on throwing the “no true Scotsman” fallacy at all and sundry in between snide comments about sillies and ignorance. He’d have us believe that he knows what “true” Islam is, despite being a white-bread boy in a backwater college in a whiter-than-white state. He has some special insight into what Islam is that supersedes any observational evidence, any act that disagrees with his politically convenient definition of Islam is discarded as not “true” Islam.

    Mind, he is not alone in this. Most journalists seem to be in love with this strategy. I can only think that it stems from their other doctrines of hate speech, micro-aggression, rape culture and so forth. They’ve so deeply dug themselves into a hole of subverting language to their political needs and contorting logic beyond all recognition in order to make any counter-argument illegitimate and hateful that they have left themselves impotent in the face to real aggression. The threat in their minds remains their domestic political opponents who must be kept under control at all costs.

    What is true Islam? Well, it is not what Professor Pollyanna would have us believe. Sure, he’ll trot out reasonable voices from the distant past. He might point to Ataturk who tried to bring Turkey into modernity but seems to ultimately have failed. He can do this and claim it is the real Islam. But it isn’t, there is no true Islam in that sense. It is what Islamists do today, inspired by their religious leaders in the mosque, in government or on the battlefield. According to the Professor’s opinion this should not happen under true Islam…

    In 2007, a Paris court dismissed a lawsuit filed by two Muslim organizations to sue the paper for representing the Prophet Muhammad in cartoons. In 2006, the French Council for the Muslim Faith brought a lawsuit against Charlie Hebdo for publishing caricatures of the prophet.

    Yet here we have Islamic leaders acting against what Islam is, according to the Professor. So who is incorrect, the Islamists themselves, or the white-bread Professor? What exactly is unIslamic about attacks on numerous cartoonists, film-makers, aid workers etc in recent years that makes these official Islamic representatives’ lawsuits not unIslamic? Seems to be a case of hair-splitting on a nanometer scale.

    Of course the Professor does not extend the same consideration to other terrorists. Here is what he said on Q and O in the wake of the Breivik massacre in Norway:

    this was the work of a white supremacist Christian fundamentalist who hated Muslims and multi-culturalism

    No mincing words here, he made sure to hit all the buttons on that one! Careful consideration for one group, immediate knee-jerk intolerance for another. I think we can see who actually is Islamophobic in the true sense of a phobia.

    Then we have demonstrations of “je suis Charlie”, manifesting that the pen is mightier than the sword. Yet, where were all these people in recent years? There have been plenty of occasions that act as warning that these are not isolated incidents. Where were all these people constantly guarding the threats to their colleagues lives? Nowhere of course, they were trying very hard to make sure they went unnoticed. Have they been helping those already in hiding to live a normal life? No way. They make out that those who wrote or drew “insulting” things were labelled as troublemakers, hate-speechers, right-wing, whatever, to distance themselves. Only when the inevitable happens yet again do they show up to show each other they are strong, but then melt away until the next killing. Very brave isn’t it?

    The likes of the Professor and his ilk in the media who think they are brave with their pens out on the street surrounded by thousands of armed police on high alert make sure to convince themselves that this won’t happen to them. They create definitions of “true” Islam that enables them to avoid discussing difficult issues and write off countering opinion as hate speech or ignorance. But they don’t fool the large mass of the people. Ironic really, that these fools are mostly leftists who are supposed to be adept at exploiting the great unwashed and yet seem to be unable to understand what the average citizen can comprehend with a few moments of thought.

    • There is no such thing as “true” Islam. Religions are what people make of them. Christianity was once extremely violent against non-believers; for the most part, it has changed. Islam is in the process of modernizing – and it has a tolerant and rational episode in the past that shows it can be much different than the conservatives and extremists claim. Islamophobia is not only ignorant, but impotent – Islam isn’t going away. But it can take many different forms.

      • Every word in that comment is a lie, including “and” and “the.” You’ve programmed yourself to be a liar, who lies not just constantly but endlessly. The most you ever rise from that is when you merely dissemble. You would not bother with actually knowing anything about Islam because it would interfere with your recitation of the Party line. And you’re such a sniveling sissy-boy coward that not even Ott Scerb, the brilliant staff parodist at Q&O, can exhaust the material.

        • Lol! Gotta bring out the Rush (the band) quote: “The world is a cage for your impotent rage, but don’t let it get to you.” I hope you are enjoying Pope Francis! You’re losing the culture wars big time (remember how you were certain people would stop gay marriage – lol!). You have an outdated, increasingly rejected world view Martin. You can huff and puff on call names on blogs, but in the real world people like me are changing the culture away from what you would want – and there’s nothing you can do about that. So enjoy your online bravado. It’s not real. And I know that you know it.

          • You know that quoting Rush doesn’t make you cool, right? They’re a super s*ck band which makes it quite appropriate for you (apologies to anyone here who likes Rush but I can’t stand them and their music makes me want to jam ice picks into my ears….much like listening to an Erb “lecture” lol)

          • Blah, blah, blah.

            You’ll always be a liar, Erb. That’s all you know, and what you do. You encourage lying. You support lies. You can’t stop yourself.

            You don’t *want* to stop. It has consumed you.

          • Yes, of course he is a liar. His purpose here is to draw everyone into endless tangents.

            Meanwhile, there are people who showed courage, who engaged in freedom of speech and press, who were butchered by murderers espousing hateful, intolerant ideology.

            Scott pays them no mind. He offers no respect for them, their rights, their principles. He doesn’t waste any time giving his boilerplate lectures about ideologies regarding Sharia. He doesn’t dare bring up that Muslims in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc. etc. have murdered people for “insulting the prophet” on a regular basis.

            And, of course, he doesn’t care about the rights of women in these countries. Those women just get to suck it until a few hundred years from now when all the twitter and modernity finally sink in, according to his oh-so-reliable predictions.

          • Wow.

            THAT got real strange!

            Erp went full-caterpillar on us. Dude! NEVER go full caterpillar…!!!

            As to you “winning”…coupla thangs…

            What’s going be be the take-away from the ONGOING atrocities in France… More people convinced Muslims are “just another religion”, or more people convinced that Muslims have to viewed as a foreign, invading force?

            If you believe what your spouting here…PUT UP. Publish the Mohammed cartoons, and rely on your “moderate Muslims” to protect you from the “not all Muslims” that will come after you and your kids.

            Easy-peasy, Erp. Show us how wrong and hate-twisted we are. Or STFU.

          • Only you, Scott, could make a discussion over the murders of a dozen or more people about yourself… again. You really are one f***ed up little puppy.

          • Remember “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day“?

            Examples abound of newspapers and news stations blurring out the images Charlie Hebdo made, though they have no problem displaying the brutal execution of the policeman on the sidewalk, or images of Jewish caricatures, or Christian icons being depicted in the most disrespectful settings of human waste.

            If the real problem is “Islamaphobia” and real Muslims (like real Scotsmen) pose no threat, then these cowards who pretend to be for freedom of speech and freedom of the press would simply show the images as news, instead of being afraid of being murdered.

            If you won’t show a picture which directly relates to a major news story because you fear that Muslims will come murder you, then you have no business pointing your finger at those who decry the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism and claiming they are just as bad. No one here will come to your office and murder you, Scott, for the stupid crap you write. You’ve had decades online taunting people, calling them all sorts of insulting names. And yet, not once did you ever consider yourself brave like the people at Charlie Hebdo. Because you’re not debating crazy fundamentalist Muslims.

      • Soooo, no real response just complete non-sequiturs and, oh wait, back to quoting Rush further down for some strange reason. I take it the morning espresso with a lithium chaser is kicking in?

      • “There is no such thing as “true” Islam”

        But you just told us, repeatedly, that peaceful moderates practice true Islam, whereas the terrorists practice untrue Islam. Once again demonstrating true Erpian logic and consistency.

        • “Once again demonstrating true Erpian logic and consistency.”
          Stand Back! He’s using the Shrodinger’s Truth!
          TAKE COVER, SHIELD YOUR EYES!

      • “There is no such thing as true Islam”

        …and this is why you cannot ever say “Muslims are against terrorism!” because some are against it, some are for it, and some are ambivalent.

        And I seriously don’t get why you can’t see obvious evidence whether from ISIS or Pakistan’s blasphemy laws to apostasy killings and not have the light go off in your head: “hey, some of these peaceful Islamic people aren’t that tolerant.”

  • My key observations from this thread:

    “Studying” something doesn’t mean one understands anything about it.

    The concept of moral equivalence, that putrid idea created by proto-postmodernist William James (Wikipedia: “James defined true beliefs as those that prove useful to the believer.”) and developed into a propaganda tactic by Soviet propagandists, is alive and well.

    • Erb never *studied* Islam and knows nothing about it, Billy.

      If he had studied it and knew anything about it, his arguments would be of an entirely different character and structure. Such that even if everyone here disagreed with them, the arguments would stand on some substance. He’s just lying, in other words.

      • Erb never *studied* Islam and knows nothing about it, Billy.

        That’s why I put the word in quotes. He thinks reading the pablum put out by academic apologists for Islam is “studying”. It would never occur to him to read, say, Daniel Pipes on the subject.

        • Uncritical idealized propaganda doesn’t qualify as factual analysis.

          But acanemics like Scott have decades of practice whitewashing Lenin, Mao, Che Guevara, Castro, et al.. They were well meaning. Their actions were in response to imperialist Americans rattling their sabers and engaging in witch hunts. The US government and its allies were just as bad. (Except, of course, for Obama PBUH whose drone strikes which kill dozens of civilians for every genuine target don’t count, because he’s so cool and has a cool wife and only racists dis him.)

          • So much puerile name calling and bravado here. Old white men acting like their on the school playground! But Elliot, I don’t know many who would whitewash Lenin, whose attempt to create a utopia condemned a country to horrific conditions, and a leader who would use that consolidated power to “purge” 20 million – nine million more than Hitler’s holocaust. Or Mao, who let 30 million die because of his effort to push steel production. Well meaning or not, the evil of those systems is clear and we have to learn from that. And criticizing the US when it does bad things does not mean people are saying the US is “just as bad.” You’re making stuff up – as you often do – and criticizing your fantasy. That is not honest. You can do better Elliot. Most of the posters here are just letting emotion drive them to silly name calling – and that’s about all one can expect of them. You can do better.

          • Well, I’m driven by the emotion called truth, and so when I see a purported man droning on with the same kind of vacuous bullshit, about anything and everything, as you always have, Erb, I will at a time of my choosing tell you what it is and what you are. I can see you treating any facts presented to you here with the same contempt in which you’ve always held facts, so I won’t bother adding any. But I can tell you that you know nothing about Islam, or its history, and that you are, in the words of the late Bob Grant, a fake, phony, fraud. You’re strictly a Party line man, a liar, an empty academic dipshit, and, when considered in your real context, a predator on the good faith of any student who walks into your classroom.

          • You revise history by relegating Lenin and Mao to merely being utopian or wanting to “push steel production”. Nothing about their mass murders, labor camps, theft, brainwashing, and complete intolerance as a consequence of taking collectivism to its logical conclusion.

            If “wise leftists” like you were in charge, of course, none of those horrors would happen. You’d find a way to take away what people worked to create through peaceful means and wouldn’t need GULAGs or purges. It would be all rainbows and unicorns, right?

            You left out Che and Fidel. I can still find your ramblings about Batista if I need to.

            I can still find your attempt to draw moral equivalencies between Japan and the US, or Bush 41 with Saddam.

            You’re making stuff up….

            Ahem:

            Scott Erb (January 8, 2015 at 21:24) …you have to lose the Islamophobia. If you don’t, you’re no better than the extremists.

            Your ability to draw moral equivalencies between two groups is astounding.

            Writing comments on a website, making factual remarks about patterns of human rights abuses and violence, is “no better” than walking into a newspaper and murdering a dozen unarmed people with machine guns.

            Scott, why aren’t you speaking out about the bravery of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, journalists, and editors? Why aren’t you giving them at least the respect of a little bit of time before you dump your bucket of propaganda bilge in here?

            Where are your statements about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the abhorrence of violence in response to speech? Why aren’t you afraid that “tea party” “extremists” or “inbred” redneck types are going to come chop off your head? Why do you think that insulting people here is safe? Because we’re not Muslims.

            Go find a forum with radical Muslims. Use your full name and picture. Denounce the violence of these terrorists. Express your support for the freedom to “insult” Mohammed. Express your support for the rights of women, homosexuals, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc.. Put up pictures of Mohammed from the magazine and ask them: “What’s the big deal?”

    • You should go back and bold italic the word “Anything” there Billy.

  • Good news- those terrorists are now ex-terrorists.

    In the meantime this world did a fairly good job at putting Islam in the corner once long ago. Don’t think it will ever be attempted again- the West has chosen decline- but there IS historical precedent for the world going batsh-t crazy and having a gigantic throwdown.

    In the meantime I eagerly await the moment when Islam comes up against gay here in the West.

    • In the meantime I eagerly await the moment when Islam comes up against gay here in the West.

      No contest, the gays will lose. There aren’t enough votes compared to the Islamic community.

  • Poor ol’ Scott is wedded to his talking points. He can’t see beyond them. He must have a stone tablet somewhere with the “Liberal-Approved ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN FACTS About Islam” engraved on it — so he embraces the Received Wisdom and happily ignores Islam’s 1400 years of history.

    For Dedicated Liberals, Theory trumps Reality.

    Every. Single. Time.

    Until Reality turns and devours them. [ “… this is known as ‘bad luck’. ” ]

    • Those are not mere talking points. That’s the Party line, and his life hangs on that. Think of the fellow travelers who switched overnight from being anti-fascist and pro-war to being pro-fascist and antiwar when Stalin reached agreement with Hitler via the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 and then switched back when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. That’s the level of adherence to the Party line you get from Erb.

      • Yeeeeup. That’s our boi, Erp. The self-anointed tongue-bath boi for Cabana Collectivo…

    • And, also, if Erb had ever seriously studied *anything* at all, as opposed to drinking down and reciting the Party line, he would not have a teaching position at his backwoods university. Hiring people who actual study and know things at places like that ended quite some time ago.

    • His type wants to seem very open and tolerant. And since there are a bunch of decent, normal Muslims, they are half-right.

      So they go out of their way to believe all Islam is peace.

      Then the next step is to vilify anyone who has some doubts about this as islamophobes to defend their position.

  • http://michellemalkin.com/2015/01/09/the-mohammed-cartoons-and-other-riot-inducing-images/

    Here, Erp. You can just link to that on your blog, with a warm endorsement of the Enlightenment and the right of free minds to lampoon ANYBODY.

    Surely you can be as brave as a girl. Right?

  • Professor Pollyanna has one reply to his vacant missive on Islamic tolerance, from a Pakistani woman who nicely serves up his attitude in a link to her own work responding to another ass-hat, Ben Affleck…

    In your culture you have the luxury of calling such literalists “crazies”, like the Westboro Baptist Church, for example. In my culture, such values are upheld by more people than we realise. Many will try to deny it, but please hear me when I say that these are not fringe values. It is apparent in the lacking numbers of Muslims willing to speak out against the archaic Shariah law. The punishment for blasphemy and apostasy, etc, are tools of oppression. Why are they not addressed even by the peaceful folk who “aren’t fanatical, who just want to have some sandwiches and pray five times a day? Where are the Muslim protestors against blasphemy laws/apostasy? Where are the Muslims who take a stand against harsh interpretation of Shariah? These sandwich-eating peaceful folk do not defend those suffering in the name of Islam, Ben, and therein lies our problem.

    Then, she probably has never attended a course in advanced Islamic studies at Mooseville U in Whitebread, Maine.

    • Woman eh?
      needs to know her place – how dare she! She’s never studied like Erb. Where is the male representative of her family!
      She’s just an ignorant bigot too and doesn’t understand Islam and besides Islam isn’t going away! (rolls eyes, foaming mouth, head rolls from shoulder side to side)
      I’ll bet she’s impotent! and ignorant! and impatient! and other words that are bad and begin with i, like, um, impertinent and intemperate, intercontinental, intergalactic and interfrastic!

  • I don’t want to get in a name calling argument with bigots, or people who honestly think Islam is the caricature put forth by the right wing. You’re comfortable in that simplistic world view, and harmless. However, for those who actually want to think about what is best for the future – and realize that the only way to true peace is to help the Arab world modernize (the Christian West took about seven centuries to slowly change, with lots of horrific stuff going on – slavery, women with no right to vote, wars, colonialism, etc.) They’re being whiplashed into modernity thanks to globalization all at once. The culture will take awhile to shift. But you can’t “defeat” Islam – any one who thinks that is, well, an idiot. Because it’s not about Islam. I’ll let you guys continue with your silly name calling and bravado – it’s cute. But here’s a good piece from the man with the sky hook I used to love to watch when<a href="h I was a kid:

    • But you’re a liar and an idiot, Erb, with so many straw men cascading through your comment that even one of your dumbed down semi-literate students would know something was wrong, with you and your stupid, lying argument.

    • But here’s a good piece from the man with the sky hook I used to love to watch when<a href=”h I was a kid:

      Call everyone in the room lame. Flip off everyone. Turn around to strut out. Trip and smash your face into the door frame.

      Heh.

    • I don’t want to get in a name calling argument with bigots,

      Yes, you do, you love it! You are happy as a pig in mud when you think you are battling right wing bigots.

      or people who honestly think Islam is the caricature put forth by the right wing.

      The “right wing”? What is this in your whitebread backwater American view? Is it not merely itself a caricature put forth by the insulated American academic left wing? Why, yes it is!

      help the Arab world modernize

      Sorry to burst your bubble Professor, but there are millions upon millions of Muslims who are not Arab. As a great scholar I am sure you should know this. Since you are out on your “helping” every single day by teaching… white students… that’ll surely modernize the “Arab” world.

      Because it’s not about Islam.

      Really? So explain why all these attacks around the world are committed by Muslims in the name of Islam? Why does France not suffer terror attacks from immigrant Vietnamese, who suffered at the hands of colonial France? I don’t think you can explain that, Scott, without some reference to the intrinsic differences between Islam and Buddhism. Why are most religious/ethnic attacks in France still against Jews, who are a tiny minority and have yet to carry out a massacre in Paris? Come on Professor Pollyanna, engage some of your mental faculties.

    • But you can’t “defeat” Islam – any one who thinks that is, well, an idiot. Because it’s not about Islam.

      Well. That got too quantum caterpillar for me. I’m delighted to say I can’t make any sense of that.

      But…back in Realityville…we DID beat Shinto, and in some ways that was a much tougher nut to crack. Or am I being too logical?

    • But here’s a good piece from the man with the sky hook I used to love to watch when<a href="h I was a kid:

      Hey, Erp…!?!? Was that your bon mut….????

      • I think his mainspring broke. The Mark whatever Bloviator doesn’t have a warranty, so it may be awhile.

    • But you can’t “defeat” Islam

      >>>> History shows you can defeat any “undefeatable” foe.

      You make the price too high for them to continue. Lets look at Germany – they were the ones who started two world wars (to put it simply) It took slaughtering their men, reducing their infrastructure to rubble, occupying their country and partitioning it for decades to beat the aggression out of ’em. Or Japan – arguably even a more relevant example, since they were an honor/shame culture fighting at the behest of their god-emperor. Even after 2 nukes were dropped, it still took a humiliation of their divine emperor and the imposing of a pacifist constitution to make them behave.

      Lets go back further – what happened after Andalusia fell? The reconquista helped roll up Islam pretty good didn’t it? It’s been shown plenty in history – you make people behave by bringing the hardcore nasty to them to enforce it.

      So the idea that it CAN’T be done is a lie. Should it be done, is it moral, practical to do so etc etc – those are legit questions but lets not gild the lily here.

  • Then get OVER there to the Islamic world and help them sparky, or are you going to do it by helping all the imaginary “Arabs” living in your neighborhood up there in Moosescatia?
    ya know that Arabs aren’t the only Muslims in the world, right Mr. stereotyping ignorant bigot?

    You are such a twit.

    “Slavery” again, not an solely western issue, moron. Been around since the dawn of time. Not trying to excuse it, but stop being such a stupid asshole and pretending we’re the only culture that ever had it. Wrong 150 years ago when we finally crushed it, wrong, today, in Saudi Arabia. Did you follow that link I posted from an Arab publication on the subject? No, you didn’t, because you’re not an honest person Scott

    Tell me, did you ‘win’ yet? I always enjoy when you declare a victory and march home in triumph to the cheers of your many many imaginary admirers followed by the imaginary carts loaded with your imaginary defeated opponents.
    Pitiful.

  • say what you will on skype, his argument has one thing going for him. His particular version of 9 thought, & a flat out lying, currently infests the White House.it strikes me that that’s a fairly large problem.

    granted that erb is nothing but a useful idiot. but, why is he my loving this crap? Simple. His betters have been sending those signals for some time now.mostly, because they know that they have help in defeating the Americas they hate.

    trouble is, they don’t have a clue as to what they’re going to do with Islam, once America is defeated.

  • Arg. Err, I meant. (Skype? WTF?)

  • It would be a good thing, at this blog, to have a serious discussion about how Islamic terrorism works, why it is so widespread, and how it got reignited in the 1960s with the Palestinians. That discussion could also try to explain why the Left plays to and off of Islamic terrorism while simultaneously denying it. My adage: “Jihadists blow up buildings; the Left destroys entire civilizations.”

    I recommend, as an early inquiry into post-war terrorism, the late Claire Sterling’s book on the outbreak, especially in Europe, in the 1970s, “The Terror Network.” It’s out of print but Amazon has used copies available from its network of independent online book dealers. It pulls a lot of the loose ends (that are still loose in conventional understanding) together. Complementary to that is Sterling’s truly vivid and detailed account of the attempted assassination of John Paul II, which is another stunning piece of journalism of a kind that is nearly extinct, if it survives at all.

    • That second book by Sterling, on the JPII assassination attempt, is “The Time of the Assassins.”

    • It would be a good thing, at this blog, to have a serious discussion about how Islamic terrorism works, why it is so widespread, and how it got reignited in the 1960s with the Palestinians.

      Islam is one of the few, if not only, cultures that’s been able to resist the Post WWII Progressive global hegemony. It has done so chiefly by reaching into its darkest aspects and empowering the xenophobic crazies. In less stressful times, moderate temperaments would prevail, but extreme times, etc. And since you brought it up, I’m going to draw an uncomfortable analogy — right, wrong or indifferent, parking an ostensibly Jewish nation on their doorstep was akin to the Soviets putting missiles in Cuba. If it were possible to simply walk back from Islamic territories, one could argue that Islam would just peacefully evolve into whatever. The rub is that the West is parked up in its grill on a now permanent basis. Also, the problem of Europe proper, with so many Islamic ghettos and “no-go” zones that hang like cysts around their urban areas. The Progressives, in their infinite wisdom, created a labor crisis with such a lavish post-WWII welfare state that their Progressive aristocracy needed to import an underclass to maintain their lavish lifestyles (sound familiar?). A sane society would nip this problem peacefully and repatriate the lot before another otherwise good-thinking progressive like Brevivik has the scales fall from his eyes and decides to take the only option available.

      • I’m going to keep my answer short in order to not let it get complicated.

        “The Progressives” were not the driving force after WWII behind the spread of global socialism. “Progressives” are advocates of social democracy. The driving force behind the global socialist revolution after WWII was the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union meant Stalin and then his successors. He and they would have just as soon killed a social democrat as a capitalist and considered them counterrevolutionaries, though they were tolerable and made good dupes in Western societies, for the nonce.

        The Soviets/Stalin were meanwhile up to their eyeballs in the Islamic world. In addition to their own Muslim majority republics stretching out across central Asia, the Soviets cultivated several clients in the Middle East, most notably Egypt, where the regime would hardly fit the description “Progressive” but was indeed socialist and a dictatorship, from Nasser right through Mubarek (with a brief interruption by the Muslim Brotherhood — *also* socialist — before effectively falling back into the hands of the military).

        Israel is a good example of the difference between how the West views things and the through-the-looking-glass way that Marxist-Leninists view things. Westerners would see Israel as a good thing with problems or a bad thing with some good things. Stalin without question understood that Israel could be used as a perpetual provocation, and that’s exactly what the Soviets did. Westerners would look for a political solution to the problem. Marxist-Leninists would see it as the perfect way to effect “the worse the better” scenario they prefer and would never have an interest in a political solution. The Russians since the Bolshevik Revolution have never had any interest in peace per se (they’ve never left their own people in peace, for instance), yet they inevitably run all the “peace movements.” They like to control both sides of the equation.

        Finally, Islamic terrorism, starting with the Palestinians no later than the late 1960s was run by the KGB. The questions are: When did they stop? Did they stop? Why would they stop?

  • Mark Steyn on yesterday’s idiocy in France:

    “The French authorities killed three murderous savages yesterday. That was the only good news on a day in which a third hostage siege began in Montpellier. The bad news started at the top, with President Hollande’s statement after the Charlie Hebdo slaughter and the Kosher grocery siege:

    “‘Those who committed these acts have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.’

    “Yeah, right. I would use my standard line on these occasions – “Allahu Akbar” is Arabic for “Nothing to see here” – but it’s not quite as funny when the streets are full of cowards, phonies and opportunists waving candles and pencils and chanting “Je suis Charlie.” Because if you really were Charlie, if you really were one of the 17 Frenchmen and women slaughtered in the name of Allah in little more than 48 hours, you’d utterly despise a man who could stand up in public and utter those words.”

    http://www.steynonline.com/6744/hollande-daze

  • Then this link from Steyn’s piece…

    Islamists won’t kill free speech—we will

    ‘In my view there is no media outlet in Canada brave enough to allow a full and proper discussion of Islam’

    http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/amiel-column-on-charlie-hebdo/

    • Steyn has these matters in clear focus. He went through a minor version of the Euro madness with the Canadian commission for protecting feelings.

  • Here’s where the cries of “bigot” and “Islamaphobia” from that sniveling lying coward are headed, which is where they already are in Sweden…

    A Swedish member of parliament reported a far-right leader to the police on Friday for alleged incitement to hatred over a comment related to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris.

    In a Facebook comment to an article on the killings at the French satirical weekly’s office Wednesday, the party secretary of the Sweden Democrats Bjoern Soeder wrote “‘The religion of peace’ shows its face.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396140/pascharlie-andrew-stuttaford

    • The Swedish Democrats (personal disclosure: would never vote for them). They have risen sharply to hold the balance of power. None of the political class will deal with them and hope that by ignoring them or shutting them out they will go away. Yet, they can now effectively topple a government. How have they gained this power? Quite simply because they have successfully portrayed the main parties of both sides as being unwilling to tackle issues that are of rising concern, such as immigration and integration. It doesn’t take a genius to see this is basically true, no established political party dares to take up the debate but your average voter realizes there is some truth in the claims. So, they have rapidly gained votes. As you note this is where painting people as bigots while refusing debate with a democratically elected party gets you.

      Amusingly (or not) enough, the massive demonstration in Paris will have representatives of all parties… except for the National Front which was specifically not invited. They too are democratically elected and represent some part of the French population. So the supposed unity of “je suis Charlie” is once again exposed as little more than posturing.

      This won’t end well, and the likes of Erb will be mystified as to the continued rise of these parties… and continue to beclown themselves with analysis from the reality dysfunction leftist playbook.

      • The SD sounds very much like a “black” (as opposed to “red”) socialist party that is effectively a controlled opposition. Is there any possible way, short of divine intervention, that Sweden will be brought back from socialism? Yes, you get the usual “reforms” when the national treasury goes tilt, but the Soviets themselves did that very thing from time to time, or pretended to. The SD caters to more traditional Swedish views and to closing the immigration barn door after the cows are fully inside. It’s a pressure relief valve, or so it strikes me.

        • The SD has certainly grown on the protest and discontent vote. Taking largely older or poorer voters from both left and right, those who regard that all existing political parties are in a compact to not discuss anything about multiculturalism or immigration. Much of the SD political platform is solidly centrist, they are not stupid and have done an excellent job in positioning themselves, not responding to provocations and using any snubs or exclusions to demonstrate that they are “correct”. Which has worked fantastically. They are much less radical than the Greens or the Left parties and less conservative than the Christian Democrats. They have in the space of two election cycles gone from no presence to becoming the third largest party and broken the old Swedish model of a government opposed by a placid opposition, alternating now and then. The one thing prized above all else in Swedish politics is stability and predictability. Remove that and you’d think the world was ending. There are two major parties and five minor support parties. SD completely spanked all the other minor parties this cycle and demonstrated that a large part of the electorate is ignored. I don’t think you can call them a controlled opposition, they upset the old protocols and clearly risk becoming the second largest party at some stage… if they continue to play politics properly. That no major party, left or right, has attempted to co-opt and moderate their more extreme views just demonstrates that political troughing and stasis trumps actually governing for the best of the country.

      • The people who ought to understand the distant rumblings are Islamic.
        And they should wonder how such large crowds gathered so quickly in support of Charlie Hebdo.

        and if they understood what motivated THAT, they ought to then take the next logical step and ponder where is the tipping point that makes those crowds turn violently against them.
        The more this sort of thing happens the more the weight pushes in that direction..
        So, the ‘moderates’ better hope the ‘radicals’ don’t go pushing things like Charlie Hebdo too quickly
        or they’ll discover where the balance point is.

      • Its pretty obvious that there are simply too many Muslims to deport them, and that would look really racist.

        And forced integration would be racist, too. And messing with religion is rightly viewed as a bad ting.

        Its also impossible to untangle the “bad” ones from the “good” ones, so we just have to keep repeating that “Islam means peace.”

        So, go-along to get-along politicians just do that. Its totally understandable – it really is not a situation where 75% are radicals.

        The problem is that when you decide to just ignore the problem, and call opponents racist. That’s not fair.

        These are not tiny populations where we could just hope nothing bad happens. France has has several attacks in recent months.

  • I wouldn’t take Erb’s gloating about playing Grima Wormtongue to future generation lightly. We can’t afford many more generations of people to learn the hard way.