(Via Never Yet Melted)
All the years since 9-11, I’ve scrupulously avoided and condemned the jingoistic notion that all Muslims are fanatics and terrorists. There’s a billion of them and most are pretty much like you and me. But. The strain of barbarism poisoning the Arab/Muslim world is growing more putrid by the moment.
Since the slaughter at the World Trade Center, I’ve been waiting and wondering when the peaceable moderates of Islam would rise up, condemn, shun, defund, and de-legitimize the monsters among them. Well, those moderate voices have been way, way too moderate — when they’ve spoken at all. And they’ve been 100% ineffective. The savages are triumphant.
Now we have these obviously well-planned, expertly (and ruthlessly) executed murders at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo.
Over cartoons. Over satire. Over free speech.
And every sign says that the murders were perpetrated by Islamic terrorists.
Governments have proven utterly incapable of protecting people against these murderous loons. Our own government repeatedly categorizes slaughters by Islamist nutjobs as mere “workplace violence.” Now, believe me, I don’t want governments to go looking for terrorists under every rock — partially because we’re already seeing how ugly that kind of society looks and partly because … well, in the U.S. “the authorities” find it more politically correct to go after militia members and guys in NRA hats than after people who post “Allahu Akbar!” on their Facebook pages before going off to kill their neighbors and co-workers. I assume other countries would also choose convenient non-Islamic targets. And it would be as wrong as ever to consider all Muslims to be potential terrorists.
But these barbarians must be stomped into the mud and muck of history, and I think the primary people responsible for doing it are … other Muslims. Yes, yes, I’m aware that Islam is a distributed religion. It has no pope. It’s as fragmented as U.S. Protestantism. It has no mechanism for acting from one central source, or even to act reliably in concert. Nevertheless, we’ve got a world full of well-trained Islamist thugs who increasingly believe they can simply cut down (sometimes literally) anybody who disagrees with them. And IF most of those tens of millions of other, innocent Muslims — and their imams and their ayatollahs and their cultural, intellectual, and military leaders — really, truly are against this savagery, if they really, truly believe in the rights of their fellow human beings, then it’s time for the whole Muslim world to bring all its philosophical, economic, social, and moral might down — hard! — upon the putrid savages within their midst.
Individual Muslims aren’t to blame. But their religion is. It fosters savagery. They need to address that.
Meantime, a world of innocent people — not to mention those who were already as much at risk as the Charlie Hebdo editors, cartoonists, and writers — ought to be getting better armed — even if nobody gives them permission.
Absolutely and amen.
I agree that the radical islamists need to be contained and defeated by the rest of the Muslims that are considered moderate. However, I believe they won’t do anything until they are targeted by the Islamists. when it is their camel being gored, they will take action. Until then, just watch the world be destroyed. The other problem is also cultural. The majority of the radical Islamists are from the middle east or influenced by the middle east, particulary the areas traditionally considered Arabic. The vast majority of Muslims in the world are not arabic or from the middle east, why should they get involved? The most likely players to get involved would be Persia (Iran) and Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, Iran is a pariah (for reasons not understood by me) and Saudi Arabia isn’t known for it’s military prowess.
Matt, another — You’re right that this appears to be mostly an Arab/Persian Muslim problem, though Indonesia and Malaysia seem to be more endangered than once upon a time. And of course we’ve got plenty of crazy Islamists here in the U.S., both native-born and imported (and not just imported from the Arab world).
I’m not talking about military action (though perhaps that, too). I know how fragmented the Middle East is. No doubt every Muslim government in that part of the world constantly weighs the growing threat of terrorism and calculates how much harm it might do to somebody else and how they can take advantage of the chaos. So I sure wouldn’t have any hope for military solutions.
I’m talking about social and economic pressures. I’m talking about turning terrorists into objects of contempt, rather than heroes for lost young men to admire and emulate. I’m talking about ways to cut off funding to them (though I know nothing about how). I’m talking about making them into pariahs. I’m talking about them being shamed and shunned by all decent Muslims.
Here’s a wonderfully sad, wonderfully apt cartoon response (via Tam):
https://twitter.com/RLOppenheimer/status/552848047089405952/photo/1
And some evidence that even murderous terrorists are subject to the Streisand Effect:
http://elmtreeforge.blogspot.com/2015/01/lets-have-little-more-offense-while.html
And Matt, though I agree with you that large numbers of Muslims won’t act until “their own camel is being gored” (good one), I think they’re very likely to discover, fairly soon, that their own camel is being gored — by fed-up westerners attacking innocent Muslims in retaliation.
That will be horrible, unjustified, and unjustifiable. But I think between all the recent beheadings, the slaughter of schoolchildren in Pakistan, and now this murder of free speech in the heart of Paris, a lot of formerly tolerant people will have had enough. Instead of going after or defending against the hard-to-reach terrorists, a lot will just say, “A Muslim’s a Muslim” and “The only good Muslim’s a dead Muslim.” Ugly.
They’ve been goring each other’s camels for centuries. The only thing that changes is the technology available for them to use to do it. The First Fitna started in 656 AD. Sure, it’s waxed and waned over history. And there’s an underlayment of tribalism too. Toss in the aspects of honor culture, and revenge culture, and it’s quite a volatile mix.
I’m at a loss, too, for how moderate Muslims would somehow gain the sort of cohesiveness necessary to wield the power to shut off the extremists.
I hate how easily people get suckered into acting monstrous by superstition- especially superstitions community-approved by their social circles. Whether religion or State superstitions, the outcome is all too often the same. And when you combine the two into a hideous chimera…. theocracy is a deadly thing.
As regards the “Streisand Effect”, I have forwarded those images to everyone in my address book and have encouraged them to do the same.
I wish every newspaper in this country, and around the world for that matter, had the gumption to do the same. It would send an unforgettable message to all the Muslim fanatics that they’ve finally crossed the red line. (I won’t hold my breath, though.)
T.E. Lawrence (a.k.a., Lawrence of Arabia) understood the Arab mind quite well. http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/myths_texts/on_the_arab_min.php
And while not related to a jihad, the interactions with the Barbary Pirates are of some interest. http://www.handbookforinfidels.com/Jefferson-and-the-Barbary-Pirates.html#.VK4W_CdIXhA
I think this is a pretty insightful interview on ISIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArsK5qGIYBE
What’s new is we have a president whose loyalty is, I believe, legitimately being questioned. As is his religion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY When asked if he had converted Obama to Christianity, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright said he didn’t know. The question of religion wouldn’t be so important if it were not for the issue of deception, which exists concerning so many matters.
http://www.americancowboychronicles.com/2011/10/cowboys-vs-muslims-great-joke.html
One wonders when the U.S. media will discover that they aren’t going to be observers in this one.
Do not submit!
http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2015/01/07/do-not-submit-republish-the-mohammed-cartoons-everywhere/
Rebroadcast from elsewhere:
1). What many do not know is that the GIGN has been watching and defacto protecting that media outlet since the firebombing a couple of years ago. GIGN is as capable and good at killing as any US PSD Group.
2). That these terrorists managed to find the keyhole into this and then escape, speaks to me of either a complete coincidence, a deliberate political order standing down of forces “at just the right moment”, or an inside job.
3). Watching them move one can say they are no strangers to team tactics, killing, or special hit and run direct action. Hardly the lone wolf jihadist, or “sudden jihad syndrome”, this was a well planned, supported and executed event.
The predictable outcome and inevitable consequence of the collectivization and institutionalizing of individual belief …..the demonization of the ‘other’….the empowering and authorization of fanatics to do evil in the name of good.
Individual Muslims aren’t to blame. But their religion is. It fosters savagery. They need to address that.
I could not disagree more. The religion of Islam no more fosters savagery than Christianity does. Probably less, in fact: haven’t many more mass murderers been self-proclaimed “Christians” than self-proclaimed Islamists?
Further, I find the notion that peaceful Muslims bear any responsibility whatever for the actions of violent men and women who have appropriated the same name, to be repugnant. All that anyone owes the world is not to aggress upon it, and to lead by example. No one has a moral responsibility to “address” anybody else’s problems but his own.
I read this column as assigning group blame to all Muslims for the actions of a few. You do know where that kind of assignation of blame leads, do you not? And yes, I see all your disclaimers, but the heart of the message remains, and I consider it unjust and dangerous.
You’re not the only one upset. There’s even a LICD strip about this.
http://www.leasticoulddo.com/comic/20150108/
Just a fan of the strip, I’m in no way part of this except enjoying reading this everyday.
A number of years ago I read an article written by an Israel soldier that used to patrol the west bank and the interviewer asked why doesn’t the “moderate” muslims simply refuse to give aid and comfort to the terrorists in their midst. The soldier explained that there were no “moderate” muslims because if a muslim refused to do what was asked of him by them, he would find that he or one of his family members would be killed for the refusal. That might be part of an explanation of just why “moderate” muslims haven’t come forth.
JdL is the product of state funded schooling and mass media. And no doubt proud of it.
I found her posting to be both insightful and articulate.
If we are to ever find a way to stop the centuries of wars, occupations and crusades, it will be through dialog with such people. Western religion has a lot to answer for in spreading violence and hate throughout the Muslim world. Not that those wrongs justify this or any atrocity.
A.G. — Thanks for the defense. I appreciate it. But though I don’t think JdL really got what I meant and I don’t think Islam is fundamentally peaceful, s/he does have a point. It would be wrong to hold a billion Muslims responsible for the acts of a few thousand terrorists — if that’s what anybody’s doing.
Rocketman — Point taken when considering people who are trying to live their lives in high-risk conditions. But that doesn’t explain why there’s been so little real opposition to Islamic terrorists elsewhere in the world. There are (among others) plenty of religious, cultural, and political leaders who could be spearheading or inspiring the effort to marginalize the barbarians, but who don’t appear to be making much of an effort. I would expect by now there would be large, worldwide efforts in the Muslim world to delegitimize the terrorists who act in the name of Islam.
Please excuse the gender reference in my above post concerning JdL. I have no idea what gender JdL is. It was my impression only which I did not edit out. Sorry.
“…the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”
Yep, the religion of peace. Lots of cute commandments like this in the “holy books” of Islam. They all sound pretty radical to me.
Seems to me that if you don’t believe in all of the requirements of a religion, the logical thing would be to find one that you did agree with, or dispense with religion if you couldn’t. But I get the feeling that a lot of them, at least, don’t use much logic…
Actually, I can see a serious parallel to the socialist/entitlement philosophy of life. In all Islamic teachings that I’m aware of, the core is total subjugation to central authority – god, or his minions. All Islam completely and eternally rejects any possibility of self ownership and individual choice.
The development of a thousand different interpretations of that same central subjugation – fighting and killing each other over it – is proof to me of how insane it all is… Yes, many other religions have gone through such phases. Islam seems to be the only one stuck in it now, and for a long time before.
There is something to this crime that is quite unsettling to me (as if the crime itself was not bad enough) and that’s the fact that French ‘authorities’ almost immediately knew whom they were dealing with as the perpetrators conveniently left their IDs in their car when they abandoned it. Yeah, sure.
This sounds awfully familiar, and it also sounds awfully like a False Flag. We know (Judge Andrew Napolitano addressed it in one of his Freedom Watch shows before it got banned) that out of the 30-odd ‘prevented terrorist attacks’ 27 were actually staged by the FBI and then ended before they were acted out, and three were ‘real’ but prevented by citizens, not the FBI. All this to keep the fear for domestic terrorism alive, and the infringements on the citizen’s freedoms ‘acceptable’.
I cannot help but wonder whether the French anti-terrorist branch staged this attack for propaganda purposes but lost control and had it then unfoil ahead of schedule, as the perps were well known Jihadists and respond to the stereotype of FBI ‘recruits’: young men unsure what to do with their lives and ‘given an opportunity to be important’. It certainly would not be the first time.
Call me paranoid, or tin foil hat. Governments are not to be trusted.
I admit the back of my neck prickled at reading that ID had been left in a vehicle (rather like Mohammed Atta’s passport miraculously surviving the 9-11 crashes). But boy, if intelligence agencies did attempt to stage the attack, you’re certainly on target when you say they lost control. That was real terrorism, whoever was responsible for it. And so far I’ve seen only one article make the claim about ID being left behind.
“Governments are not to be trusted.” Truer words were never spoken.
Qui bono?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/paul-craig-roberts/patsies/
The “holy book” is full of instructions to kill, subjugate, take sex slaves, lie in treaties if not in power, etc, and the bottom line for infidels is convert, die, or be a slave and be taxed, no other options. Can there be a moderate? Can one be a believer and not accept the book as the truth and final word and act accordingly? A religion of peace?
You can’t judge people by their holy books. If you did, you’d have to conclude that Christians and Jews share all those monstrous values of killing, taking sex slaves, abusing children, etc. — even though that’s observably untrue.
The examples, particularly from the OT, are too plentiful to cite. But they include things like stoning to death anyone who commits blasphemy (aka free speech), killing girls who aren’t virgins on their wedding night, selling your own daughter into sex slavery, and killing all gay men. As to punishing mockery of prophets, Jehovah himself sends she-bears to tear 42 children to pieces for making fun of his prophet Elisha’s bald head (http://biblehub.com/2_kings/2-24.htm). Jehovah also orders multiple genocides. “He” particularly orders that women, children, and animals be slaughtered. In one case “he” specifies not only the slaughter of infants, but specifically calls for his righteous soldiers to dash babies’ heads against rocks (Isaiah 13:15-18).
The vast majority of religious people the world over just manage to ignore the barbarities in their scriptures. It’s a damn shame that all that “righteous” viciousness is available for the fanatics to use at will.
“Please excuse the gender reference …”
Oh, Tahn. No biggie. If a he occasionally gets called a she, it’s a nit compared with the centuries in which all shes were lumped as hes when people wrote or spoke about mankind (which, I note, is still called MANkind). 🙂
Besides, in anon blog comments, who can tell?
In that past fifteen years a tiny handful of muslims have travelled to christian-dominated countries to kill people. In the same time, vast armies of christians have travelled to muslim-dominated countries and have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people–not even for what they said, but for where they were born.
Looks like the muslims are doing a much, much better job of controlling their murderous fanatics than the christians are.
Almost completely true, Ken Hagler (though I believe the religion of the armies in question is government-worship and/or global hegemony more than Christianity; Christianity gets lip service for the most part while government gets action). And I don’t think too many people hereabouts either support or excuse what governments have done.
But I missed the part about how all that justifies attacking a bunch of French cartoonists just because you (the attackers) don’t like their opinions about your prophet. I missed the part about how all that government-sponsored slaughter and suffering justifies trying to end free speech for everybody.
Joel says it well.
http://joelsgulch.com/yknow-i-try-to-stay-away-from-all-the-bullshit-about-islam/
What do justifications have to do with anything? You wrote that muslims need to stop other muslims from killing people for no good reason, and I pointed out that they already are doing so, and quite effectively–especially compared to the behavior of christians.
Frankly, I’m endlessly amazed by how incredibly little muslim terrorism there is in the US and Europe–we’re in more danger of drowning in the bathtub. Despite the scale of the US-led slaughter, muslims fight on the defensive almost exclusively, with the few exceptions so rare as to be statistically insignificant. Islam fosters savagery? Clearly not. If anything, it fosters an absolutely incredible, even absurd degree of forbearance.
Claire and Ken, good points and points taken, still a couple of nits to pick. To the subject of holy books, I’m thinking it would be difficult to find many non muslim atrocities that weren’t protested by the majority of the group or members that seriously believe that the she-bears should be sent in or the righteous should be bashing babies’ heads. Rarely if ever do any muslims protest in any form the beheading of children or other similar acts of murder or abuse by the “extremists”. There appears to be a very real difference in how the books are acted upon by the members, stonings, murder for family honor, the current acts, statements by leaders, and so forth for example. Not to defend the others, however, bet you couldn’t find a practicing Christian in the army or the pentagon, if you did it would be behind closed doors. The invasions are for empire, and the military/industrial complex for profit. The show is about “the barbarians at the gate” and “bread and circuses”. Keep the peasants scared, fed, and entertained, and you can do anything to them you want.
I did miss your point earlier, Ken, and was hoping to get back in here to say so before you posted again.
I still disagree with your point about who’s stopping (and not stopping) what, though.
Yes, there should be a much, much bigger anti-war effort among westerners. No question about it. However, stopping the largest, most powerful organization in the world — an organization that can kill or persecute anybody at will and take/create whatever money it wants to pursue its aims — is quite a different thing than opposing terrorists.
No, I’m not saying ordinary Muslims can stop terrorism (and I don’t see much evidence that they have stopped it or even that they seriously oppose it, though fellow Muslims are its worst victims) — although an effort to do so would not be akin to trying to stop a government from doing something government leaders and manipulators wanted to do.
I guess I could put it better by asking questions. Where are the Muslim clerics issuing fatwas against terrorists and terrorist supporters? Where are the global, Muslim-run organizations researching the causes of terrorism and attempting to divert young men from violent fanaticism? Where are the Muslim (or Arab) financial institutions trying to defund terrorists? Where are the cooperative efforts between governments of Islamic countries (yes, I know; ptooey. But …) to combat terrorism? Where are the Muslim PR organizations working to make terrorism unpopular? Where are the Muslim social organizations promoting the idea that terrorists are pathetic little creeps, rather than heroes?
Maybe they wouldn’t be able to stop terrorism or even make decent inroads. But where are they?
If the nasty crew at the Westboro Baptist Church decided to bomb funerals in the name of Jesus rather than just picket them, you can bet that other supporters of Jesus would organize to stop it. Or at least organize to more loudly say, “These morons don’t represent us.” (Heck, good people, Christian and otherwise, have already done some very clever, bold things to ensure that the Phelps crew doesn’t succeed.)
I’ve been expecting to see something like that in the Muslim world since 9-11. Where is it?
Thank you, RW. I think we were posting at the same time. Well said (though I do think there are lots of practicing Christians in the Army and the Pentagon (for good or ill); I just don’t think their wars are Christian religious wars).
“There appears to be a very real difference in how the books are acted upon …”
RW, I definitely agree with that. Much of the Muslim world does seem to take all the primitive savagery of the Koran far more seriously than the western world takes the biblical equivalents. When I said that you can’t judge people by their holy books, I meant only that: that those who are citing hideous commands from the Koran to prove that Islam is inherently violent don’t appear to realize that there are equally hideous commands in the bible.
But yes, you’re totally right that you can judge people by how they choose to adhere to or ignore those violent orders from the past.
There are reasons such a large part of the Muslim world is retreating into primitivism and fundamentalism. But those reasons don’t change anything. The fact that Muslim societies take the Koran more seriously than western societies take the nasty parts of the bible is … a damn sad fact that you’re 100% right about.
You might want to read this op-ed:
http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2015/01/09/the-real-lesson-of-charlie-hebdo/
You might not want to read this op-ed, which inspired the second part of the above:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-shariah-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/
But if you want to have a look into the mind of a classic abuser (“they were asking for it,” “you made me do it,” “the little vixen really wanted it”), there it is.
(H/T ML)
Yes, it is hard to stop a huge and powerful organization. But people like us who _want_ to stop it are a tiny minority. Most people support that organization when it kills muslims, and the people who do the actual killing receive near-universal adulation here. If some christian wants to blow up a muslim funeral, he doesn’t even have to lift a finger–just sit there secure in the knowledge that the government is already doing it for him. And if he wants to do his own dirty work, he can join the military or the CIA and have that huge organization supporting him when he does so, while people make movies and TV shows about what a hero he is.
Muslim terrorists are a tiny handful of people operating on so little money that one person could pay for any given terrorist attack. Problem is, when people have no support, there’s not really anything anyone can do to stop them ahead of time. They’re no different than those crazies here who occasionally shoot up a public place.
In other words, muslims who want to murder christians are already being opposed with the greatest success it’s possible to achieve, while christians who want to murder muslims are _supported_ nearly as strongly.
Ken,
You’re confusing some things. Namely you’re ascribing religious labels and motivations where any religious affiliation is just correlation, not causation.
The u.S. has never sent its military abroad rightly or wrongly as a Christian army, or for the cause of spreading or repressing a religion. When a drone strikes a funeral, it’s not because there are Muslims there, but because it’s believed that some or most of the people there that happen to be Muslims have been or are a threat. I’d guess that the vast majority of u.S. military personnel are Christian, but that’s not the causal factor behind their selection of targets, and I doubt few if any signed up because they viewed it as being part of some Holy War against the heathens de jure.
As for Muslims, I think it more a product of culture than religion that makes it so easy for some of them to engage in violent acts that we consider barbaric. That culture when coupled with that religion just produces a strain that uses said religion to justify their actions.
As for support, some of these murderous groups are very well funded, occasionally receiving assistance from governments. I haven’t kept up with it, but last I heard ISIS (or whatever the hell they’re called) ain’t exactly having to make Ramen Pride a staple of their diet.
I’d contend they are different than people here that go on shooting sprees. First of all their motivation – they’re not acting on some psychosis that makes them bitter at the world or some self absorption that makes them lash out in one last self pitying act before they snuff themselves. These folks are acting out of hate, not for Christians or Jews but for the world. They target Christians and Jews because their religion demands it in those instances, but it can be anyone, even other Muslims, that they feel a grievance towards. In general they’re better trained and since it’s often more than just one, better coordinated. Also, their religion that they channel their hate through tends to frown upon suicide, so unlike a school or mall shooter over here that decides to end it when faced with opposition, or even when they just hear the sirens growing louder, most Muslim terrorists will try to fight or evade.
To sum up, it’s not a Muslim nation that does a good but imperfect job of restraining its members who want to strike back defensively against a Christian nation that murders them wholesale and gleefully; it’s a culture that focuses its hate through a religion and attacks anyone it can because the attackers lack respect for Property Rights (in the Lockean and Randian sense) but know the value of fear. Religion has little to do with it – they’re just bullies and thugs.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot and something is truly missing from the whole discussion. There is evil in the world, and always will be. The reasons people do evil are important, yes, but just talking about it does not actually do anything to stop the evil. I have yet to see ANY discussion in the news or commentary about the need for armed self defense, or the difference it might have made in this case… not a word. And darn little of it from “our side” either.
The question of the motives of the attackers, their religion or any of the rest of it seems distinctly secondary to this vital issue. Why couldn’t these people (all people) at least have some chance of self defense?
I’m not saying that the attacks in France could have been thwarted by a man or woman – or two or three – who happened to be carrying handguns at the moment. That’s not the point, though many have tried to excuse the situation with that silly idea.
The point is that the French people, as a whole and as individuals, do not have any effective self defense options in any situation. Their culture accepts and often glorifies unarmed, helpless victimhood. As does most of the rest of Europe and all too much of the rest of the world. It is this acceptance of victimhood, the idea that helplessness -relative or complete – is somehow safer and better that is the problem. And it is a problem in far too many places in America as well. How does that learned and beloved helplessness contribute to world peace or safety?
Here’s a nice irony. Charlie Hebdo might have been on the brink of going out of business when those control-freaking thugs injected life into it:
http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-charlie-hebdo-survivors-issue-to-sell-outside-france-2015-1
If true, now it’s only a matter of whether the ‘zine can find bold, talented people to replace the dead.
I also read that Google is giving $300k to the magazine.
Update:
UPDATE:
Armed self defense related to the Paris jihad murders is finally getting noticed, both in the MSM and among freedom bloggers.
Debate erupts over armed journalists after Paris attack
http://www.examiner.com/article/debate-erupts-over-armed-journalists-after-paris-attack
Something of an Internet snit has erupted over the idea of journalists carrying guns in the wake of the bloody attack in Paris, and a story in Wednesday’s Washington Examiner quoting author Emily Miller and opinion columnist Jed Babbin seemed to spark the debate.
WashPost Asks, With Straight Face: Why Didn’t Strict Gun Laws Stop Charlie Hebdo Massacre? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2015/01/09/washpost-asks-straight-face-why-didnt-strict-gun-laws-stop-charlie-hebdo
[Very good question….]
It gets worse.
Apparently, the police commisioner in charge of teh investigation suddenly committed suicide… https://www.google.nl/search?q=Helric+Fredou&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=PsKxVOnqHu-P7Abhm4GoBQ
The shot policemen’s partner shows an inexplicable smile at 0:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W26uPD0ZNw8
I would not be able to smile, not so short after such a loss. People may react in mysterious ways, but still.
In 2009, the top suspect was an ‘example’ immigrant, meeting then president Sarkozy http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/01/10/paris-terror-suspect-met-with-french-president-sarkozy-in-2009/
Make of it what you want, but my impression is that there’s something rotten in the state of… France? Europe?
I do get some feeling that this is the Boston Bombing, all over again…
Collective guilt is the best guilt, right?
And collective guilt, despite weasel wording about not blaming individual Muslims, underlies this whole post.
There are relatively few absolutes I believe. Here are a few:
Attacking the innocent is evil.
Attempting to silence free expression is evil.
Striking back at evil, no matter how monstrous, by attacking innocents is evil.
The West’s attempts to “stomp Islam into a mud-hole” over the past century – ballooning to grotesque proportions in the last thirteen years – are evil.
The concept of collective guilt is evil. And the irreducible core of socialism of any kind, including the right’s militarist national socialism.
Much as I enjoy Larry Correia’s fiction, if he believes a government capable of stomping a billion-plus people “into a mudhole” for their faith will in any remote sense be a small government, he is a damned fool.
If he says a government which acts as he desires will leave him, or you, with any vestige of freedom of any kind – whether of self-expression, or of bearing arms, or of breathing without a permit – he is lying. Although to be charitable, I believe he’s lying to himself before all.
The Charlie Hebdo murders, though an attempt to strike back for inexcusable evil, were themselves inexcusably evil. That cannot excuse the greater evil inevitably to come.
And what this article primarily does for me is confirm that the greatest threat to my liberties and my life does not come from overseas, nor marginalized brown people, nor from Islam.
[But. The strain of barbarism poisoning the Arab/Muslim world is growing more putrid by the moment.]
Hmmm, I wonder, if we were in their shoes, would we be any different?
[And every sign says that the murders were perpetrated by Islamic terrorists.]
Or by a western government posing as Islamic terrorists, in a false flag operation. The precision of the actors points more at the latter…
[Governments have proven utterly incapable of protecting people against these murderous loons.]
Not surprising, because that is not the function of governments. The function of governments is to plunder the peons.
[Individual Muslims aren’t to blame. But their religion is.]
Ah, no. Individuals are ALWAYS to blame.
“[Individual Muslims aren’t to blame. But their religion is.]
Ah, no. Individuals are ALWAYS to blame.”
You’re correct, and I was regrettably imprecise on that point. I meant that individual Muslims who aren’t speaking out or not doing anything else to oppose terrorists are still not responsible for terrorism. The terrorists alone (and those who train them, equip them, shelter them, finance them, etc.) are responsible for terrorism. As individuals.
However, I stand by my belief that Islam fosters a murderous level of intolerance. Obvioulsy, many religions, including all the Abrahamic religions, have that capacity. In the past, they’ve demonstrated their savagery. Repeatedly. But these days the other big world religions have cultural factors that tend to keep their bloodiest forms of intolerance in check (except when exploited by government, but that’s a religion it itself). Islam, OTOH, seems often to have its worst aspects culturally reinforced.
[And collective guilt, despite weasel wording about not blaming individual Muslims, underlies this whole post.]
My impression too. Isn’t anyone else getting the feeling we are being manipulated? Do we all really have to run in a particular direction like a stampeding herd? Is it that unlikely this whole exercise was dreamed up in an office in Langley, Virginia?
[And what this article primarily does for me is confirm that the greatest threat to my liberties and my life does not come from overseas, nor marginalized brown people, nor from Islam.]
Indeed. Just think how much worse people will be doing things like this, when the economy crashes. Wow, it could get really ugly.
This brings to mind that exchange with Herman Goering:
————-
Göring: “Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”
Gilbert: “There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.”
Göring: “Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY.”
—————————-
Folks, never forget that the world is 90% bullshit.
I agree with Ken Hagler, as well as with Victor Milan. When the pogroms start against Muslims in America, I will be doing my best to shelter some of them from the blood lust.
[However, I stand by my belief that Islam fosters a murderous level of intolerance.]
It’s a piker compared to the American Government Religion. What percentage of Muslims have murdered? What percentage of believers in American Government Religion have murdered – and not only murdered, but have subsequently been congratulated for it?
Anyway Islam is a meme. It’s inaccurate to say a meme is murderous. Individuals can be murderous, but not memes. What memes do accomplish is an internal form of rationalization for the (sometimes evil) acts of individuals.
Some good commentary on the “Je Suis Charlie” phenomenon by Glenn Greenwald:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
So much for the respect for freedom of speech…
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
— Mark Twain