This started as a reply to co-blogger melfamy’s drivel and grew too big for the comment section, so here we go:
Oh, my God (I am still allowed to say that in your world, aren’t I?).
You just zoomed right past pedantic and tiresome to full-on moronic in record speed.
You probably think your little Nazi slur at the end was clever but it just demonstrates exactly what I have already written, that, and I quote:
Part of the tag line for this blog is credited to him – he called me “dishonest, diversionary and pompous” as he was in the process of losing yet another argument about some issue. In typical “progressive” fashion, rather than argue my actual positions, most of the time he created a projection of his definition of my position and argued against that. It’s called a “strawman”. It is very easy to win when you control both sides of an argument and can construct an opposing argument that is weak in exactly the areas where your argument is strong – it isn’t a legitimate form of logical debate but it is a common tactic of the political left. I’ve long said that to “win” a debate, these so called “progressives” must create a caricature of Republicans/conservatives/classic liberals in order for their points to have any semblance of validity.
When the “strawman” won’t fall over and burn, they predictably descend to name-calling.
…and you went straight there. Even bought the first class ticket.
To all who read this – everything is proceeding as I have foreseen (see my picture above).
You just built a caricature of my positions and proceeded to argue against that, not what I have posted – and you clearly want to exclude any opinion or evidence that doesn’t fit your template.
I never claimed to want to “eliminate” any Muslim. What I have said repeatedly is that Islam deserves the same scrutiny as Christianity has had and I presented facts, facts that you are apparently powerless to either comprehend or dispute and are clearly uncomfortable with, being that your side is vetting Islam just like you did Obama…and that would be in the category of “not at all”…and we all know how well that is working out, don’t we?
Just as you build a graven idol of the evil of my positions, you have created a world of unicorns and fairy dust to avoid looking at the dark side of a religion that you are simply uncomfortable dealing with. You would rather attack the people asking the questions, not the ones giving the answers. Just like when people say that we can now have that “conversation on race in America”, when it only means that we are racists for talking about it. You can only talk about race if you agree how wonderful it is to have a black president no matter how incompetent he is. You can only talk about Islam if you talk about the “nice” Muslims, not the ones who turn themselves into a red mist as they kill innocents or the ones who shoot fellow Americans while yelling “Allah is great!”. Noooo, can’t say anything about them, why that would be Islamophobic.
Clare Berlinski, writing at Ricochet adds insight:
Now here’s a point you might deeply consider: The neologism “Islamophobia” did not simply emerge ex nihilo. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia.
Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. “This loathsome term,” he writes, is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.
In another article concerning the many moderate Muslims whose voices have been drowned out by Saudi-financed Muslim Brotherhood front groups, Muhammad describes the strategy behind the word’s invention:
In an effort to silence critics of political Islam, advocates needed to come up with terminology that would enable them to portray themselves as victims. Muhammad said he was present when his then-allies, meeting at the offices of the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Northern Virginia years ago, coined the term “Islamophobia.”
Muhammad said the Islamists decided to emulate the homosexual activists who used the term “homophobia” to silence critics. He said the group meeting at IIIT saw “Islamophobia” as a way to “beat up their critics.”
If it doesn’t agree with your view, you just don’t want to hear it – and because you didn’t hear it, it doesn’t exist. It is far easier to drop the Nazi or Islamophobe grenade and run than to stick around and see your beloved unicorn die. You want to exclude any act from any Islamic group that doesn’t fit your worldview to force your argument to work – that if crimes are committed in the name of Islam, that automatically means that we can’t talk about those guys as part of Islam (they aren’t “real” Muslims), we can only talk about the “nice” Muslims who dance and sing and prance through the fields filled with poppies. I guess these “nice” Muslims are like the Eloi of H.G. Wells’ Time Machine.
How conveniently discriminatory of you…
Since you brought it up, American liberals (and I include you in that camp) are a lot like Neville Chamberlain, shouting “Peace in our time!” as the forces continue to mass against us. It’s nothing new, the “progressives” never “got” the communist threat in the 50′s and 60′s either – because they agreed with them. Hard to see the danger when you look in a mirror, I guess…after all, it’s just you, right?
Is that what it is, G? Do you agree with the Islamists who have publicly stated that they want to destroy Israel and America? Would the world be better off without either of us?
I hope this is not the case, but that is exactly where your argument goes when extended.
Here’s what I think, since you asked.
Belief systems do transcend borders and cultures – therefore, it is absolutely legitimate to observe behaviors that are conducted in the name of Islam outside America as it could well represent future behavior inside our borders. Honor killings only happen in Afghanistan, right? Well, no, they happen in Houston, Texas, too – and it wasn’t a violent Methodist sect doing it. Muslims only kill Americans in repressed, occupied Iraq, right? Well, except for Fort Hood and New York City. Those weren’t those evil Presbyterians.
The point is that an ideology of violence is easily transportable.
We are an open society with no restrictions on what people believe – that you still believe that Bush stole the 2004 election by using the Supreme Court is a perfect example of the crazy things that people believe.
How do you stop an idea or defeat a belief?
I have never called for the persecution of any individual due to their beliefs, Muslim or otherwise – but I do believe that the religion of Islam must be defeated. A belief can only be defeated by a stronger belief – it can never be beaten militarily. We beat Hitler’s armies, yet Nazism is still around. We defeated the USSR but communism still survives. The only way that Islam can be beaten is by Christianity and like all good useful idiots, American liberals have been hacking at the foundations of the last bastion of religious freedom for decades – failing to realize that if they are successful, the repression they presume to labor under today truly will begin in earnest after the collapse of Christianity.
I do believe Christianity is superior to Islam, I will not apologize for that – compare the great societies and human progress under Christianity to that under Islam and the record could not be clearer – as a matter of fact, the advancement of Arabic societies and their formerly great institutions of learning and science started their decline as Islam rose. The most free societies are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, the most repressive are under atheist or Islamic belief systems…and yes, America is a Christian nation built on these same Christian principles. Islam is not compatible with Christian values and therefore is not compatible with American values.
Just like when you accused me a plagiarism and couldn’t produce anything other than a post where I assumed that the readers would recognize the origin of the text between two continuous posts, basically a poor citation, I will issue the same challenge – find anywhere I have called for what you have just accused me of and I will publicly apologize.
You are just like the fools who claim that cutting taxes is racism, getting an abortion is a “heath issue”, Bush lied or the only possible reason for opposing Obama’s policies is that he is black. The fact that non-Muslims also kill people does not change the fact that Islamists do. You are safe inside your little alternate reality with its unicorns, insulated from harsh facts– unlike the rest of us who are trying to promote honest debate by revealing what we see as gaps in the arguments…and when Christianity is blamed for ruining the world (evil = Nazi = right wing = conservative = Republican = Christian) and Islam gets a pass (Religion of Peace = Islam = unicorns), there are some big gaps to close.
Until such time you prove me a liar, you owe the people writing and commenting on this site an apology for your tasteless, libelous and baseless insults.
I once considered you a bright man – no more. I’m ashamed that I even thought that.
I have been nothing but deferential to you but I will do so no more. You have embarrassed yourself and done significant damage to any credibility that you had. You have sadly revealed your self to be just another emotion driven, screaming and shrieking harpy, bound by a reactionary blood oath to liberalism – well, its not even really liberalism – it is some form of anti-realism…maybe we should call it Disneyism.
You lost any right to assume any moral authority on the subject the second you typed the words “final solution”.