@ fertiziling treefrog:Tell it to the ACLU, Froggie. (but don't Mister Peanut and his handmaiden, Big Sis, have very special plans for our internet freedom?)
They incite in their mosques and associations while you dither and tut. In Barry 0's brave new world, sites like this will be illegal, but organized Islamists who incite and spread hatred and violence will be a ok.
Thanks to our prevailing pee cee over eager insistence on not too harshly judging what may simply be legitimate differences of culture and opinion, 12 innocents were murdered at Fort Hood.
And Major Hassan, who had no bidness being a major, is a hero in much of the Islamic World.
Would it have been too Islamophobic to drum his miserable ass out of our military as soon as he started spouting smack about how we were slaughtering innocents in his neck of the traditional woods?
He got to shout allah akbar, 12 people got to die before their time, and our progressive wishful thinkers got to ignore yet another example of a dedicated enemy bleeding our strength away.
Or was the Army correct to promote his funky ass and look the other way?
We can't risk offending these people in our wonderfully diverse little village, right? The diversity nazis might demote us, right?
No wonder Vladimir Putin sneers at us, and no wonder OBL called us a weak horse.
There has been so much good discussion, creativity, humor and good cheer around here since Commentary banished us that it pains me to see endless semantic debate regarding abstract ideas such as progressivism or Islamophobia.
It's just friggin boring, beating dead horses, Colin, and I see no purpose served.
For instance, today's Philly Inquirer discusses Ayaan Hirsi Ali's latest book, Nomad. Reading that brief review and analysis, would you say that she is Islamophobic?
She comes right out and says that the religion is different from all others in its embrace of violence and intimidation, and she comes right out and decries those in the west (like you?) who avoid carrying out a critical dialogue with Islam for fear of somehow missing legitimate cultural differences, and appearing to be bigoted or intolerant or just plain unwelcome on Park Avenue or in Georetown's most lovely salons.
Christopher Hitchens wrote the intro to her original book, Infidel , in which he also criticizes vague western defenses of Islam such as W's religion of peace twaddle. He gets very specific in mentioning Tariq Ramadan, a Moslem many westerners think of as the ideal moderate, when he really is not very moderate at all.
So moderate Islam may be a lovely theoretical concept for those who studiously ignore reality, but aren't you defending a notion of moderate Islam which is absent from the real world?
What is the purpose of dat, my frem?
Why all the columns of words. Certainly, tens of thousands of Moslem families live in peace with the rest of us in London, Toronto and Chicago. I get the sense that most of them live very secular lives in which their religion is practiced mostly at home. Probably the vast majority want nothing to do with 'charities' which fund jihad and mosques which sell "Mein Kompf." Is this enough? Should they also form organizations to defeat the jihadists? Are they able to speak out without too much fear of being murdered? If not, how can we entertain the notion of a peaceful and tolerant Islam for a split second?
Because we want to? Because we have some kind of stubborn adherence to an abstract ideal?
I don't enjoy this seemingly endless argument in which Colin seems to make up an imaginary predominant Islam which is peaceful. In spite of much evidence to the contrary, and in spite of a resounding silence among Muslim majorities, periodicals, media outlets, organizational charters in response to the entitled and dogmatic cruelty, brutality, bigotry and rejection of the very idea of tolerating those outside the Muslim sphere, Colin continues to maintain that any who sound the alarm about this obvious and growing threat are some kind of intolerant provocative bigots.
I reject any who callously and cynically pull the race card to silence dissent. Now it seems that a new Islamophobe card is being played to dismiss any who see the need to address a very real threat.
It seems doubly strange to me since our common roots on this site seem to nurture and arise from a desire to not be credulous saps, or self deluded ga ga heads, oblivious to reality. We, for the most part have agreed that much of what is wrong with the world results from fuzzy thought and wishful thinking.
This simply does not make any sense to me. How much evidence is required? As the murders and other incidents of brutality and intolerance mount up and as brave woman appear to testify about their subjugation, and as the majority of Moslems continue to either silently cower or passively enable their most bloodthirsty co religionists, it seems to me that anyone who insists on ignoring all of this must have some kind of intellectual tic, or perhaps a chronic need to argue over every word or concept, even when reality clearly overwhelms abstract words and concepts with very real blood and terror.
@ fertiziling treefrog:Tell it to the ACLU, Froggie. (but don't Mister Peanut and his handmaiden, Big Sis, have very special plans for our internet freedom?)
They incite in their mosques and associations while you dither and tut. In Barry 0's brave new world, sites like this will be illegal, but organized Islamists who incite and spread hatred and violence will be a ok.
Thanks to our prevailing pee cee over eager insistence on not too harshly judging what may simply be legitimate differences of culture and opinion, 12 innocents were murdered at Fort Hood.
And Major Hassan, who had no bidness being a major, is a hero in much of the Islamic World.
Would it have been too Islamophobic to drum his miserable ass out of our military as soon as he started spouting smack about how we were slaughtering innocents in his neck of the traditional woods?
He got to shout allah akbar, 12 people got to die before their time, and our progressive wishful thinkers got to ignore yet another example of a dedicated enemy bleeding our strength away.
Or was the Army correct to promote his funky ass and look the other way?
We can't risk offending these people in our wonderfully diverse little village, right? The diversity nazis might demote us, right?
No wonder Vladimir Putin sneers at us, and no wonder OBL called us a weak horse.
Sorry, for the distancing, Colin, my frem.
There has been so much good discussion, creativity, humor and good cheer around here since Commentary banished us that it pains me to see endless semantic debate regarding abstract ideas such as progressivism or Islamophobia.
It's just friggin boring, beating dead horses, Colin, and I see no purpose served.
For instance, today's Philly Inquirer discusses Ayaan Hirsi Ali's latest book, Nomad. Reading that brief review and analysis, would you say that she is Islamophobic?
She comes right out and says that the religion is different from all others in its embrace of violence and intimidation, and she comes right out and decries those in the west (like you?) who avoid carrying out a critical dialogue with Islam for fear of somehow missing legitimate cultural differences, and appearing to be bigoted or intolerant or just plain unwelcome on Park Avenue or in Georetown's most lovely salons.
Christopher Hitchens wrote the intro to her original book, Infidel , in which he also criticizes vague western defenses of Islam such as W's religion of peace twaddle. He gets very specific in mentioning Tariq Ramadan, a Moslem many westerners think of as the ideal moderate, when he really is not very moderate at all.
So moderate Islam may be a lovely theoretical concept for those who studiously ignore reality, but aren't you defending a notion of moderate Islam which is absent from the real world?
What is the purpose of dat, my frem?
Why all the columns of words. Certainly, tens of thousands of Moslem families live in peace with the rest of us in London, Toronto and Chicago. I get the sense that most of them live very secular lives in which their religion is practiced mostly at home. Probably the vast majority want nothing to do with 'charities' which fund jihad and mosques which sell "Mein Kompf." Is this enough? Should they also form organizations to defeat the jihadists? Are they able to speak out without too much fear of being murdered? If not, how can we entertain the notion of a peaceful and tolerant Islam for a split second?
Because we want to? Because we have some kind of stubborn adherence to an abstract ideal?
I don't enjoy this seemingly endless argument in which Colin seems to make up an imaginary predominant Islam which is peaceful. In spite of much evidence to the contrary, and in spite of a resounding silence among Muslim majorities, periodicals, media outlets, organizational charters in response to the entitled and dogmatic cruelty, brutality, bigotry and rejection of the very idea of tolerating those outside the Muslim sphere, Colin continues to maintain that any who sound the alarm about this obvious and growing threat are some kind of intolerant provocative bigots.
I reject any who callously and cynically pull the race card to silence dissent. Now it seems that a new Islamophobe card is being played to dismiss any who see the need to address a very real threat.
It seems doubly strange to me since our common roots on this site seem to nurture and arise from a desire to not be credulous saps, or self deluded ga ga heads, oblivious to reality. We, for the most part have agreed that much of what is wrong with the world results from fuzzy thought and wishful thinking.
This simply does not make any sense to me. How much evidence is required? As the murders and other incidents of brutality and intolerance mount up and as brave woman appear to testify about their subjugation, and as the majority of Moslems continue to either silently cower or passively enable their most bloodthirsty co religionists, it seems to me that anyone who insists on ignoring all of this must have some kind of intellectual tic, or perhaps a chronic need to argue over every word or concept, even when reality clearly overwhelms abstract words and concepts with very real blood and terror.