Obama administration gave Iran as much as $33 billion in cash


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Whose side is he and the Democrats on? In the past three years the Obama administration could have secretly shipped as much as $33.6 billion (with a B) to Iran.

Between January 2014 and July 2015, when the Obama administration was hammering out the final details of the nuclear accord, Iran was paid $700 million every month from funds that had previously been frozen by U.S. sanctions. A total of $11.9 billion was ultimately paid to Iran, but the details surrounding these payments remain shrouded in mystery, according to Mark Dubowitz, executive director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. In total, “Iran may have received as much as $33.6 billion in cash or in gold and other precious metals,” Dubowitz disclosed.

This is in addition to the $1.7 billion in cash that was paid as ransom for the release of several U.S. hostage.

We of course all know that because of Barack Obama’s golden tongue and his ability to give speeches that this money will now only be used for humanitarian purposes. Of course we know this. Of course.

And of course we also know that Hillary Clinton will continue these policies, because she recognizes how successful they have been.

169 comments

  • Localfluff

    Crooked crooked Clinton. Crooked. How ever could anyone consider voting for her? The most corrupt politician in world history. She is owned by the worst tyrants in world history, who bought her with tens of millions in bribes. A vote for Hillary is a vote for an American Ayatollah. A vote to murder all LGBTQ, enslave all women, rape all children and literally crucify bloggers. But the stupid stupid “feminists” vote for stone age islamism.

    One can still get about three times the money by betting on Trump for president. If it doesn’t happen, we’ll be, eh, in a bad way anyway to put it politely.

  • Max

    When the story broke about the 400 million that was paid in ransom, I would tease the guys at work about the 4 million paid and they would correct me saying no, it was 400 million… “How do you know?”
    How do you know how much unmarked bills were placed on a plane before it refueled in Dubai? How much was offloaded to the Obama refugee fund and watering hole there? Did it have 800 million when it left Europe?

    For a cargo plane that size it could have billions aboard. Remember the 6 billion in cash that disappeared in Iraq?
    Obama (The community organizer) is using the Bush model to fund community out reach when he retires. (George Soros won’t live forever) The Clinton cartel model has too many loopholes, connections, loose ends people to pay and favors to make.
    It appears that I under estimated my guesstimate of how much money was really involved. My nature is skeptical, especially when it comes to politics and government, but I was way off on this one. I should have known better, 400 million was just the tip of the iceberg that’s about to follow…

  • Cotour

    How much of that do you suppose Iran thinks is enough to break off for someone who provided and facilitated such services?

    $150 billion + $33 billion +( ?) +( ?) X’s .01………… $188 billion X’s .01 = $1.88 billion dollars (?)

    Think that’s crazy? That’s on thee low side. (lets start a “crazy” conspiracy)

    That sounds like a sweet deal to me (in an off shore secret bank account). The Clinton’s may yet get a lesson in graft, corruption, treason and treachery.

    And, where the hell is the congress in all of this? I suspect that the leadership has been laid down by certain information that they dare not confront. What ever that is, I have my theories.

  • Cotour

    When asking ourselves:

    “What do we believe is the motivation that drives Obama to do such things, is it pure ideology? Or is there a bigger incentive and motivation or a combination of the two?”

    I always default just assumed that the apology tour and things like releasing the Iranian money was purely about weakness and ideology. But thinking further on the subject I must conclude because it seems reasonable to me that there must be more involved given the amounts of money involved and the nature of politics and man.

    Always follow the money. When there is a key man (or woman) who sees themselves as being the prime motivator, driver and facilitator of some kind of activity they can always rationalize their being compensated for those unique services. Think about it.

  • wayne

    Obama is an ideological anti-colonialist in the Marxist tradition. Everything he has done is specifically designed to “knock America done a few pegs.”
    He’s not a bumbler or stupid, he’s a diabolical Mastermind. And he’s not motivated by money, he’s motivated by power.
    It’s going to take us decades to slow & reverse course, if we can even pull that off. It took 100 years to drag us to this point, and one election won’t fix it.

    (These physical money-transfers, were designed specifically to avoid using the worldwide money-transfer system and to by-pass our own financial-regulation apparatus.)

    [https://www.swift.com/]

    Carly Fiorina was the most vocal Primary candidate to bring up and address “SWIFT,” but, of course, no one paid any attention and the current GOP candidate was obsessed with her physical appearance.

  • Cotour

    Wayne,

    Until recently I have agreed fully with your assessment, but I must go to the amount of money and how the Iranians will be indebted to him.

    Anything can be rationalized, especially receiving money or some other kind of remumeration for unique services provided. How ever it might get done at what ever point in the future. You think exorbitant speaking fees are the only path to compensation for services rendered post White House?

  • Andrew_W

    As you all know the transfers are Iranian money being returned to Iran as a result of agreements between the US and Iran. How about some honesty here?

  • Andrew: I am beginning to see a pattern here. You are told by our leaders and some science experts that global warming is happening, and humans are causing it. Thus, you accept that claim without any skepticism and have been consistently dismissing all facts that might suggest the claim is bogus, or at least quite uncertain.

    Now our dear leaders have made agreements with a terrorist nation that promotes and funds violent and vicious mass murders of innocents worldwide, and because those leaders have made these agreements, you demand that we, the citizens, accept those agreements without any skepticism or challenge.

    My question to you: Do you ever have any skepticism or concern about anything done by any authority figure? From where I stand, I do not see any evidence of it.

  • Andrew_W

    “Do you ever have any skepticism or concern about anything done by any authority figure? From where I stand, I do not see any evidence of it.”

    Don’t you already have enough people here who agree with each other on almost every point?

    I express my opinions, and like to challenge the narrative on sites I comment on, I don’t comment on that many of your posts because I’m not interested in adding another echo.

    The three areas I’m probably going to be at odds with you and many of your other commenters are on the science of AGW, the supposed Evils of Islam and the correctness of the US in all her military campaigns.

    I could comment at length about the problems of big government, the inherent inefficiencies of state health and education, the costs of protectionism, the evils of dictatorships, racism, sexism and other bigotry, but where’s the challenge in talking about stuff that everyone here agrees on?

    So am I correct that the money being transfered is Iranian money that has been frozen for over 3 decades or do you take issue with me on that point?

  • Andrew wrote: “So am I correct that the money being transfered is Iranian money that has been frozen for over 3 decades or do you take issue with me on that point?”

    You are correct, but that really is completely beside the point. The funds were frozen for very good reasons. They were released for very bad ones. I think it behooves the citizenry to make that point. You seem bothered that I and others are.

    I also like how your frame things: “the supposed Evils of Islam.” Heh. “supposed”. I suppose you will also dismiss all of this that has happened in the past two decades. All a figment of our imagination. Other religions have done it! Crusades! Inquisition! How dare I criticize Islam!

    As you should have realized by now, I have no problem with anyone correcting me or disagreeing with me. I do however find your now admitted approach — “to challenge the narrative on sites I comment on” — somewhat troll-like. Are you here to add depth to the discussion, or merely to throw grenades in order to distract us from it?

  • Cotour

    Who’s money it is or was is of no consequence, the end result is that this president and his followers have empowered the Iranians and have gotten nothing of consequence in return. That’s it in a nut shell.

    Making it a moral issue of ownership is a bit naive and pedestrian in the context of strategy and international affairs. A that is Obama’s strategy in selling it. Make the argument about “rightful” ownership and morality.

    I do not buy any of it because its a false narrative.

    If you control something you do not give it up to empower and or enrich an enemy. Period.

    And when the argument is made that the administration got concessions from Iran, how long does any really believe that to be true?

    https://youtu.be/MyLiUdAlwUs

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/world/middleeast/iran-tests-long-range-missile-possibly-violating-nuclear-accord.html

  • wayne

    Andrew_W:

    I don’t speak for Mr. Z at all, but I’ll weigh in briefly with my own opinions.

    The Iranian money, is ostensibly “their frozen money from 3 decades ago,” so what? There were pending lawsuits against Iran, which were rendered moot by Obama. That’s real money, real claims-on-wealth, and leverage which was given away to a homicidal regime.

    We have no idea what exactly Obama ordered transferred, and he intentionally by-passed the SWIFT system so there would be no record. The physical cash was also assembled outside of American territory, further obscuring what actually happened. In the legal-realm, that’s pure conspiracy to obstruct.
    (in any other hell-hole Country on earth, Obama would be dragged from his castle and summarily executed, but that’s not how we do things over here. The People are restrained by our Culture and political-system, unfortunately our current leader feels no need to restrain himself from illegal actions, and he has willing conspirators overriding our Constitution.
    Our own Senate passed a Law, saying that Iran Treaty wasn’t a Treaty. Mitch and the gang are willing participants in all this. (and now I hear that clown Corker, talking big against Iran, when he and his fellow-travelers are directly responsible for allowing Obama to do this crap.)

    Islam–I’ll say it loud: they call for my death, and the death & destruction of Israel and the USA. I want them killed, in huge numbers, and I want all their stuff broken beyond repair. I don’t care how they are killed, just that they are killed, dead & forever. (and I don’t care how that sounds to anyone.)
    Thanks to Obama and his republican fellow-travelers, my G-Daughter can now be drafted to fight in WW-3, which has already started.

    US Military Campaigns– plenty of dumb things have been done by our leaders. The Military does what its told to do by our civilian leaders. I don’t think anyone here has a “my country right or wrong” bent.

    Not trying to attack you, but you aren’t in America, are you? And I would proffer that you don’t understand what’s going on over here, or exactly what the American Experience actually is. (It’s not a requirement you be a citizen to ‘understand,’ but it might help.)

    Would you rather live in a world, where America never existed? That’s the rub isn’t it?

    I’m sick of apologizing for my standard of living, my Culture, and my County’s political system and past actions. I’d compare America’s record with any other Country on Earth, ever.

    We have high ideals which we often don’t achieve, but it’s not because those ideal’s aren’t valid, it’s because of tiny politician’s with provincial views.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    It is always nice to know someone who is agreeable, on occasion, but not so nice to know those who are always disagreeable. Please feel free to chime in on the topics you agree with, perhaps adding a fact or two. It’s nice to get to know the lighter side of people, as with your Evening Pause suggestion, last week.

    Lively discussions are fine, but reminiscing over Star Trek’s 50th anniversary, for instance, can be pleasant. It is nice to learn what other people thought or discovered during common experiences.

  • Andrew_W

    Bob: You are correct, but that really is completely beside the point.
    I disagree, “given” and “returned” are completely different.

    I suppose you will also dismiss all of this that has happened in the past two decades.
    Islam has been around for a lot longer than two decades, the conflicts between some Muslim countries and the US and her allies are a direct result of specific events; the US supported expansion of Israel, the CIA supported installment of the Iranian Shah with his subsequent overthrow, the 2001 US invasion of of Iraq.
    Over the history of the major religions Muslims are responsible for no more, and arguably far less bloodshed than Christians, Buddhism and Taoism.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

    I do however find your now admitted approach — “to challenge the narrative on sites I comment on” — somewhat troll-like.

    There seem to be two popular definitions of “internet troll”, one is anyone that disputes claims made or supported by a blog host, the other is people who look to create disputes not because they fight for their honest opinion but simply to have a fight.

    I don’t argue points on topics that aren’t important to me.

    Cotour: Who’s money it is or was is of no consequence, the end result is that this president and his followers have empowered the Iranians and have gotten nothing of consequence in return.

    That would depend on whether or not it’s your money, someone holding another persons money might not think there’s any reason for the money to be returned, the owner of the money is always going to think the money should be returned, by standers are likely more inclined to think the money should be returned.

    Wayne: Islam–I’ll say it loud: they call for my death, and the death & destruction of Israel and the USA. I want them killed, in huge numbers, and I want all their stuff broken beyond repair. I don’t care how they are killed, just that they are killed, dead & forever. (and I don’t care how that sounds to anyone.)

    Have you given any thought to the method you’d use to kill 1.5 billion people? Do you think bullets would be adequate or do you think you might need to use more elaborate methods such as gas chambers? What would you do with all the children, would you just kill them along with the adults, would you require they be converted to another religion, would you just store them in concentration camps until they became adults and then murder them on their 18th birthday?

    Wayne, Muslims dozens of fly jet aircraft into US and European cities every day, millions of Muslims are in Christian countries and Millions of Christians are in Muslim countries at this very moment. The jets usually land, the vast majority of the people do what they can to support their families and live their normal lives.

    Would you rather live in a world, where America never existed? That’s the rub isn’t it?
    You must be confusing me with someone else, the US is an asset to this world as long as the fanatics bent on killing people to fulfill a blood lust are kept under control, and I’ll say the same about any other country.

    Edward Sorry, I like DS9 and Voyager, but to me, well I’ve found the original series hasn’t aged so well – though most of the movies with the original cast were fine. Also, sadly I’m not as young as you imagine I am, I’m a ’63 model.

  • Andrew_W: As I said, you will dismiss the more than two decades of slaughter in the name of Islam that has been going on since the 1990s, in order to claim a moral equivalency with today’s other religions. And you have. Your answer: Inquisition! Crusades! Pogroms! As if these distant past events changes any of the reality of the past few decades. And then you add the absurd claim that the existence of Israel is somehow the cause of this violence.

    You can dismiss reality, as many leftists in our society do today. I prefer dealing with reality. Immediately after 9/11 I was willing to give Islam and its followers some slack. No longer, especially as they keep confirming to me their unwillingness to deal with the violent evil and hatred that is taking over their religion. That clip of a Hamas MP, which you apparently saw as benign, was far from it. The man reeked with bigotry and hatred of all Jews, for any reason, and he did so in the name of Islam. And sadly he is not an exception but is increasingly the rule for the Islamic faith.

    Moreover, you continue to follow the pattern I noted in my earlier comment. You seem to always take the side and defend the actions of the authority figure, even amazingly if it is a bigoted Hamas MP spewing hate for Jews.

  • Andrew_W

    Your answer: Inquisition! Crusades! Pogroms!
    I didn’t mention any of those things.

    And then you add the absurd claim that the existence of Israel is somehow the cause of this violence.
    After the creation and expansion of Israel there was an upsurge of violence against Israel and her allies, this upsurge was committed by Palestinians, the people most affected by Israel’s expansion.

    After the 2001 invasion of Iraq there was an upsurge in violence this upsurge was largely by the Sunni’s in Iraq, who had been disenfranchised by US allies in Iraq.

    There has not been a war between the US and Islam, the conflict is between tiny fragments of the worlds Muslim population who feel betrayed by the US when the US has supported the enemies of those few Muslims.

    You obviously haven’t noticed (how could you when you only get information from Islamophobic blogs) but most of the Muslim world condemns ISIS, few support Hamas and Hesbollah, and most people in Iran – including in the Government, want to build a positive relationship with Western countries.

    they keep confirming to me their unwillingness to deal with the violent evil and hatred that is taking over their religion.

    What should they do to deal with this violent evil and hatred, should they bomb ISIS? should Muslim organizations the world over condemn ISIS and Islamist terrorists? Should they encourage their young people not to support Islamic terrorism?

    They do all of these things.
    Muslim countries are fighting ISIS, plenty of Muslim organizations around the globe condemn Islamist terrorism, millions of Muslim parents tell their kids ISIS is evil and that true Muslims do not support ISIS.

    Yet there you sit, preaching hatred against all Muslims, and sadly you are not the exception but are increasingly the rule for the US population.

    Most people (of all faiths) in this world just want to get on with the business of living their lives with their friends and families, but you don’t get that do you? You see a relative few Muslims (may of whom have been personally affected by military actions committed or supported by the US – members of their families including their children slaughtered), and, like a leftist, you collectivize everyone belonging to that vast population into the same group, your logic makes as much sense as labeling all black people cop killers because of the actions of a tiny few – or labeling all cops as murderers of black men because of the actions of a tiny few.

    It’s too easy for people to get into the them-and-us mentality, to reduce everything to black and white, the Islamists do it, the KKK do it, members of Black Panthers do it, fanatical Islamic preachers do it, it’s the easiest thing in the world to do, turn everything into them and us, the goodies and the baddies. That way it’s a hell of a lot easier to justify killing people, people that don’t want any part in any war, people who just want to get on with their own lives easy – just as long as you don’t dare think of them in those terms.

  • Andrew_W:

    Cute. A list of links documenting how much the Iranian people like America. Also beside the point. I have not been attacking the Iranian people. I have been criticizing Islam, which I have learned increasingly in the past 15 years is theocratic, power-hungry, and very corrupt. Worse, I have learned this after much reading from not only western Islamic experts but by reading the writings of Middle Eastern Islamic scholars themselves.

    Similarly, you wrote, “I didn’t mention any of those things” in referring to my comment about “Inquisition! Crusades! Pogroms!”. What you did is provide a link to
    a Wikipedia article entitled, “List of wars by death toll,” which essentially did exactly what I said, “…dismiss the more than two decades of slaughter in the name of Islam that has been going on since the 1990s, in order to claim a moral equivalency with today’s other religions.” These distant past events have nothing to do with the increasingly violent and hateful ideology that Islam is becoming in the past quarter century, and if you wish to make believe that those distant events can act as an excuse for today’s Islam, you are living in a dream world.

    Finally, I have to ask a fundamental question: What is your point? Do you have any thoughts on how to deal with the violence and terrorism that is being perpetuated in the name of Islam, now and in the present? What should be done about it? Or is your only response to make excuses for it in order to distract us from the problem?

    In this particular post, I noted an example of the specific malfeasance of the present American administration in regards to this issue. They have not only instituted policies that have made the Islamic Middle East an unstable tinderbox, far worse than the situation left behind by the previous administration, they have apparently actively worked to aid that violence and terrorism. Your only response: They made agreements! We should respect that!

    I think Edward’s point is well taken. Your objections might be taken more seriously if you also included some thoughtful analysis that noted where you agree. Right now, you continue to come off as someone throwing grenades in order to distract from the main conversation.

  • Andrew_W

    These distant past events have nothing to do with the increasingly violent and hateful ideology that Islam is becoming in the past quarter century, and if you wish to make believe that those distant events can act as an excuse for today’s Islam, you are living in a dream world.

    I mentioned the recent events that triggered recent Islamist attacks, you just don’t want to acknowledge the obvious causality, that Palestinian terrorism was a result of the creation and expansion of Israel, that ISIS is the result of the US and allied overthrow of Saddam and subsequent failure to establish representative government in Iraq. Islamists didn’t spontaneously arise from mainstream Islam, they were created by conflict initiated and/or supported by the countries they then go on to attack.

    With Iran the US has an opportunity to regain a long time past ally, the Iranian government will continue to moderate as the lifting of sanctions improve the Iranian economy and as the Iranian people seek a better future.

    But you can see that can you? You don’t get that people reciprocate, both the bad and the good, you’re unable to recognize that religion doesn’t make a damn of difference, it just serves as a rallying cry after hostilities have already started, it always has, everyone gets more religiously fervent after their people have been violently attacked and they end up in a war against others, Muslims do it, but so do Christians and everyone else.

  • Wayne

    Andrew_W:

    Yeah, what is your point?
    You’re behaving as a pathetic little troll.

    Must be nice to live your clean, moralistic life, under our nuclear defense umbrella. You picked a bad time to pull the Nazi-card on me, tomorrow is the anniversary of 9-11.

    I don’t want to get banned for attacking you, so I’ll just say;
    “Your words mean nothing to me, and I do not hear them.”

    I don’t speak for anyone here, at all. For myself alone–
    “Yes, I want enough of our avowed enemies killed, and their infrastructure & stuff, broken beyond repair. I don’t care who whines, moans, bitches, or complains about it, and I don’t care how, or how many are killed, just that enough-of-them are killed dead & gone forever.”

    You can call me anything you want, and think whatever you will of me.
    I don’t care.
    I’m sick of apologizing for my standard of living, my Culture, and my Country.

    “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
    George Orwell

  • Andrew_W

    Bob: Do you have any thoughts on how to deal with the violence and terrorism that is being perpetuated in the name of Islam, now and in the present? What should be done about it?

    International terrorism happens after one country invades another, if you want terrorism to end don’t invade other countries and/or occupy other peoples lands, it doesn’t matter the religion of the invaded country, terrorists is almost always a product of large groups of people being displaced and having their freedom or lands taken. If the US were to invade New Zealand or France or Thailand you’ll end up with “terrorists” from those countries, if some great power were to conquer and subjugate the US plenty of Americans would become “terrorists”.

    Wayne Must be nice to live your clean, moralistic life, under our nuclear defense umbrella. You picked a bad time to pull the Nazi-card on me, tomorrow is the anniversary of 9-11.

    If “I want them killed, in huge numbers, and I want all their stuff broken beyond repair. I don’t care how they are killed, just that they are killed, dead & forever. (and I don’t care how that sounds to anyone.).” doesn’t mean a Nazi solution, what does it mean?

    We’re not under your nuclear defense umbrella.

    “The great nations have always acted like gangsters, and the small nations like prostitutes.”
    Stanley Kubrick

  • Cotour

    Andrew W:

    You missed my point.

    “That would depend on whether or not it’s your money, someone holding another persons money might not think there’s any reason for the money to be returned, the owner of the money is always going to think the money should be returned, by standers are likely more inclined to think the money should be returned.”

    This about power and creating results related to agendas, not about “fairness” or “justice”. Because we had / have the power we sequestered / confiscated the Iranian funds essentially because they were not cooperating with our agenda.

    Obama is in the process of “making right” the offences of the past, the abuses of power (depending on your point of view) which is total treasonous BULL SHT. The naive latch on to the “fairness” argument, this is about power and the exercise of it.

    Country’s do things when they can justify and make an argument both strategic and “legal” in order to further the established agenda which secures its interests. Please do not apply everyday man justice / logic to such things.

  • Andrew_W: Your ignorance of the situation of the Middle East and the dangerous radicalization of Islam appalls me, especially in that you think falsely that the existence of Israel is the entire cause of that Islamic radicalization and the terrorism that has followed.

    I’ve actually spent some time in Israel and researched the actual situation there. Below are a series of essays I wrote during my last two visits to Israel, written based on a knowledge of history, of Israel, of Judaism, of Islam, and of the history of the Middle East. I know these were merely blog posts by me so you can dismiss them (as you do any fact that contradicts your beliefs), but I suggest you spend some time reading them to get yourself educated. You really don’t know spit about the Middle East.

    In rereading these now I can say that not much has really changed in the past three years. The Palestinian leadership in the West Bank and Gaza still call for the destruction of Israel and the elimination of all the Jews living there. Almost all the violence that occurs is instigated by Palestinians, often inspired by Islamic texts that call for the murder of the infidel. And the Israelis are still trying to work out a way to live in peace with the Arabs that surround them.

    I doubt you will read these essays, or if you do, you will find a way to ignore them. While they note the complexity of the situation and its foundation, beginning with the original UN partition, they also note the root hatred from the Arab side that prevents a solution. That conclusion — which is very politically incorrect — I know you cannot tolerate.

    Nor do these essays touch on the Islamic roots of terrorism, which go far back long before Israel had ever existed. You need to learn a little bit about Islam before you spout foolish conclusions based in ignorance.

    Unfortunately, as I said in practically my first comment to you, trying to get you to see outside your own narrow conclusions will be a waste of time. And sadly, I so far have not seen anything to disabuse me of that unfortunate conclusion.

  • Wayne

    Cotour– I’ll stand right next to you on this topic. Obama sold us down the river to the Iranians and then he rewarded them. I call it treason as well. (I still maintain Obama is not motivated by money, but he hates this Country nonetheless. He’s going to be living off the taxpayer dime, for the rest of his life, everything else is just gravy for him.)
    ——-
    The Iranian funds we could get our hands on, were frozen in 1979, after all the peace-loving jihadi’s took our embassy officials hostage and seized assets that did not belong to them. Nobody without an anti-American Agenda would willingly relinquish control over those assets or pay ransom to Iran.

    Barbary Pirates, all over again…

    Andrew_W:

    We’ve had a long history with islam. Right from the start they attacked our ships and demanded tribute. We whacked them down then and it’s time we do it again, with 20th century technology.

    I can almost hear the sound of centrifuges spinning in Iran, making material to… do what?… power their nuclear electric generating plants? (you know, because oil is bad for them to burn, right? too much carbon dioxide… and that growing democratic-consumer society needs electricity, right?)

    I’m not going to call you an anti-Semite, but if the shoe fits, put it on.

    Explain to me; what is the object of War?
    –It’s to kill enough of your enemy & break enough their stuff, until they are defeated, demoralized, and abandon their leaders and their twisted ideology.
    I don’t want these islamo-nazi’s killed because of their religion, I want them killed because of what they DO.

    When someone tells me they intend to kill me, I’ll believe them.

    From the tenor of all your comments– you believe “climate” is more of an existential threat than these jihadi’s.

  • Wayne

    This is what a REAL leader sounds like—

    “Families have been notified”
    https://youtu.be/MEwfITvtvns

  • Cotour

    Zman,

    You are down the rabbit hole now, trying to explain the multiple complexities of why the Muslims hate the Jews has been going on for thousands of years and will go on for thousands more. Andrew W’s argument has become
    mired in minutia, the subject is power, money, the confiscation of it by country’s and how that gets done and undone.

    And, Obama’s motivation for doing what he did, which IMO is just another treasonous act by a very un American American. There really are consequences to elections.

  • Cotour: My biggest passion is to provide people reliable information, information they do not get elsewhere. Anyone who honestly wishes to understand the Middle East situation will read my posts with glee, as they provide an eye-witness look at the situation in Israel written by a professional reporter who tries to get at the reality.

    None of this is intended to distract from my main post, or your point that Obama sure looks like a traitor in these circumstances.

  • Wayne

    Mr. Z– extremely interesting posts on your time in Israel. Very informative.
    –I would apologize to you, if I’ve crossed a line anywhere here & am starting to sound like some crazy alt-right nut case who wants to kill everyone. I think I’ve been consistent across time in my belief we are already in WW-3, although not as articulate and nuanced as I could be, and I don’t advocate overwhelming lethal & destructive military force, lightly.

    Cotour– yeah– you nailed it. I was getting sucked into minutia myself and taking the bait.
    (Next time we have a political thread– lets talk Levin & Trump, but not here.)

    Andrew_W:
    I’ve dealt with mental-illness all my life & on a few occasions I’ve encountered true evil in the form of what’s commonly called sociopathy & personality disorders. In my realm, people like that wind up in the criminal justice realm.
    What I see in the Middle East isn’t pretty & it can’t be fixed. It can’t be medicated away and ultimately devolves into containment at the very minimum.
    On an international scale the same thing applies. Only these little nation-state tribes at best, have access to our technology and intend to kill us with it. We don’t even try to contain them, in fact we provide them with the tools.
    Count me out, they have already a crossed line and I’m beyond morality and ethics. The fight has already begun and I’m not willing to just stand and be killed like a sheep. It’s not a matter of “if” anymore. Our Leaders blew that luxury by being weak and pathetic.
    It’s only a matter of “how” at this point, how much longer are we going to ignore the clear and present danger, and how we are going to remedy that, unconditionally.

  • Cotour

    (This is pure, raw objective analysis, read it as such)

    Lets all keep in mind here that the agendas that our country after WWII (CIA / the Dullis brothers / the British /the Bush’s / Neocon agenda etc, etc) has been involved in the middle East for basically one reason, oil / money / power and the control of it all. And our country’s self interested ambitions and manipulations that have been implemented in its interest has consequences. (always keeping in mind that if we do not control it our enemy’s will, and so there is our license and motivation)

    In the big picture this is just the expression of power over it all, I have not much problem with it given that, again, if we do not control it our enemy’s will. Although there have been done some things that were inconsistent and confusing due to our constantly changing political power and agenda makers. So we have failed in many ways in this endeavor.

    Mr. Obama IMO seeks to empower who we call our enemy’s in the middle East in order that, I suppose they will be able to control it themselves? What ever the actual motivation on his part IMO it is misguided and / or overt treason, choose one. (But keep in mind that he was elected twice to the presidency, he was given the power by at least half of Americans to make judgments and policy. You have to live with it)

    If he were to endeavor to empower any other group of people other than the radical Islamists themselves I might be more flexible on the issue, but he chooses to do so so I see him as doing more harm than good in relation to our own country’s interests. (There is no “fairness” or “morality” or “right” or “wrong”, its just strategy focused on self interest and security, this is where Andrew W and many others tend to confuse themselves on this particular subject)

    Weak, “righteous” leadership has its consequences, its always a bad strategy ending in negative consequences.

  • ken anthony

    You would expect these acts of treason to be isolated incidence immediately dealt with after exposure by rule of law. Has anybody missed the obvious that government no longer functions like that anymore? We need to clean our own house first.

    Andrew loves to conflate Muslim and Islam. He claims you hate Muslims when you don’t. He claims, because actions of terrorism are done by a minority (how could it possibly be otherwise? Even an entire country’s formal military is a minority of its citizens) that the rest just want to sing kumbaya around the campfire.

    In Andrew’s world, actions are not representative… unless done by us evil americans.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour, I quoted Kubrick “The great nations have always acted like gangsters, and the small nations like prostitutes.”

    My reading of your subsequent comments is that you argue that the great nations should act like gangsters, and the small nations should be treated like prostitutes, because might is right, if countries have the power to screw over other countries because they see such an approach as being in their interests, that is what they should do.

    Is that a reasonable summation of your position?

  • Andrew_W

    Wayne: “Only these little nation-state tribes at best, have access to our technology and intend to kill us with it.”

    Which little nation states are out to kill you?

  • Andrew_W

    Bob: “Your ignorance of the situation of the Middle East and the dangerous radicalization of Islam appalls me, especially in that you think falsely that the existence of Israel is the entire cause of that Islamic radicalization and the terrorism that has followed.”

    I’ve pointed out that the radicalization is in countries that the US and Allies have controlled, occupied, killed many thousands of people, that these actions typically precede the radicalization, and you deny what to me is obvious cause and effect. Why are you unable to see what’s a patently obvious cause and effect? Does it somehow not fit with what you want to believe?

    I read all your links, I usually do in a discussion, and again you ignore cause and effect, there was history leading up to the present, the Jewish and Muslim people in Israel, Gaza and the West bank do not share the same experiences from the same perspective and so their attitudes towards each other are different, you make the point that Israel and the occupied territories are far less violent than the rest of the world probably thinks – great, and I’m probably safe in saying that over the last few decades there’s probably a lot more acceptance amongst Palestinians of how things are, and less desire to violently continue the fight than their once was.

    Regarding your point about laws against the sale of Muslim land to Israelis, It seems to me that land owned by Jewish people is seen by Muslims as land passed out of the sovereignty of Palestine. So it’s not just a transfer of ownership, they see it as a transfer of the lands sovereignty, and there’s no country on Earth that would allow the private transfer of land to occur if the transaction was seen as a transfer of the land to the sovereignty of another state.

    Palestinians have not been particularly active in recent international terror attacks, rather Islamist terror groups now find their base not amongst Palestinians, but amongst Iraqi’s, there’s that cause and effect again.

    You seem pretty keen (Wayne even keener) to label all Muslim nations as America’s enemies, but when I look through a list of nations that are principally Muslim, it’s obvious that the vast majority want to build positive relationships with the US, they all do a huge amount of trading with the US and want to see those links strengthen, so I think if there’s a disconnect with reality it’s yours.

  • Cotour

    Andrew W:

    “Is that a reasonable summation of your position?”

    That is not my (or Kubrick’s) position, that is my (and Kubrick’s) observation about power and how it is exercised. You put me in good company, thank you.

    I think it appropriate writing on this particular subject and on this particular day, 9/11, to re post something I wrote on the subject, Strategy Over Morality (the title says it all). Andrew W, read it carefully and you may better understand how power actually operates in the real world.

    STRATEGY OVER MORALITY / S.O.M. JGL 2011

    EXTREME LEADERSHIP THOUGHT PROCESS AND ACTION WHERE THE ENDS ALWAYS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS, WHERE MORALITY IS ONLY A HUMAN CONCEPT, ADHERED TO BY “OTHERS”.

    How civilizations, governments and wars throughout history are founded, fought and must at their existential core operate.

    EXPLAINATION:
    Strategy Over Morality describes a two-tiered “conversation” between a Public and their Leadership where the Public believes there is only a single, no tiered conversation occurring and that single conversation relates to the Public’s morality model perspective.

    A model in which leadership can choose to formulate an interpretation of their core fiduciary responsibilities which becomes paramount over and above the public’s morality model. Where plausible deniability can be claimed when “immoral” acts or strategies are employed by leadership or by arms length leadership proxies.

    In this “conversation”, leadership steps “down” to the public’s level and presents information, agenda or strategy in a tailored, palatable package the public can believe and comfortably accept. Leadership then steps back to their “higher” level, formulates and executes “necessary” agenda and strategy where the public’s interpretation of morality is not relevant.

    CONCLUSION: The public lives and operates under a moral code perspective which they assume their leadership is constrained by. This is a subjective false perspective conclusion on the part of the public, in fact leaderships core fiduciary responsibility requires that leadership is or can be selectively or necessarily void of “morality”. 

    TERM DEFINITIONS:

    PUBLIC: The individual citizens of any civilization, society or country.

    LEADERSHIP: Any macro governing body concerned with the formulation and implementation of laws, strategies and policies, both civil and military.

    LEADERSHIPS CORE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES: Above all else the promotion and survival of the society, culture, boundaries, power and treasure. 

    Related questions:

    1. Who’s benevolence and self interest model would you rather live under, yours or your enemies ? 

    2. What steps will you not undertake in order for your benevolence and self interest model to prevail ?

    3. When does morality trump power and treasure ?

    4. What influences leadership and agenda ? 

    Answers and Rules of operation:

    1. You never want to live under an enemies benevolence and self interest model.

    2. You will take any steps in order to live under your benevolence and self interest model.

    3. In order for “morality” to be implemented it is initially trumped by survival and power. “First we eat, then civilization”

    4. The possessors of power and treasure always influence leadership and agenda.

    5. Leadership never willingly gives up power.

  • ken anthony

    The problem Andrew, is that you don’t really believe in cause and effect because of the way you process information. For you, facts are not foundational. It is your belief in relativism that is foundational. Therefore, you only use facts to confirm your preconceived beliefs and ignore or explain away any fact that contradicts that belief.

    The cause and effects you cite may have nothing to do with any actual cause, but just provide a convenient excuse for your belief.

    Before modern Israel became a state almost nobody lived there. Others know the history better than I do, but today’s Palestinians were formerly Jordanians and others with no cause for terrorism other than their belief in Islam.

    No level of terrorist activity or pronouncement by any terrorist in their faith in Islam will ever make a dent in your armor. But that doesn’t make you the white knight and it doesn’t make everyone else the haters.

  • Cotour

    Andrew W is obviously a thoughtful and intelligent person, he just might want to attempt to begin to seeing things in a more objective way instead of the more subjective (moral) way he sees things now.

    We all tend to see things in the subjective and process the world that we inhabit through that subjective perspective. The objective is a bit more terrifying to recognize and accept as being the real reality that we live within because it offends our pedestrian, every day man sense of “right” and “wrong”.

    Its an idealistic interpretation of reality from the subjective point of view.

    And Andrew W, I am not promoting this as a belief system, I (and Kubrick) are just assessing reality objectively and reporting what we see. This is human nature related to power. This is much more about science and observation than being disturbed by what we see and processing it in a way that is more palatable from our “civilized” seat at the table. S.O.M., when necessary.

  • ken anthony: Very nicely put.

  • wayne

    ken anthony– yes, ditto, very nicely put!

    Cotour–As you already know, I’m not down with SOM, but I’m still standing right next to you on this one in large measure.

  • Cotour

    My email this morning:

    Hillary can no longer hide her infirmities.

    Hillary feints and looses her shoe while at the 9/11 memorial ceremony this morning.

    http://nypost.com/2016/09/11/hillary-clinton-has-medical-episode-at-911-ceremony/

    They will do anything (anything) to drag her over the finish line and to retain power.

    Get ready for “Weekend At Hillary’s”.

  • Cotour

    Wayne,

    Kubrick would have fully understood S.O.M. :)

  • wayne

    I’m not a Neurologist at all.
    – Just from long-distance, watching that CBS clip– she’s having seizure-activity, at a minimum. I wouldn’t be surprised if she froze-up during the debates, and I have no doubt her Dr. will pump her full of seizure meds 24-36 hours before the debate(s).

    I was reviewing some video of her from 10 years ago— yow-za, her language skills are totally shot. That annoying cadence she displays– is infinitely worse & totally “baked into her” now.

    I wouldn’t touch her, unless I had the results of a complete Neuro-psychiatric exam. ( 8 hour procedure, done over two days.)

    (Cotour–I just made my decision.)

  • Cotour

    So you definitely will not be voting for her, the “Weekend At Bernie’s” presidential candidate. Is that what you are saying?

    (Were you really considering it?)

  • wayne

    Cotour–
    Let me shout…NEVER EVER would mark the Hillary box!

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour.

    S.O.M. is a concept I understand well, it’s not new, it’s been the norm through most of Human existence.

    Humanity spent a long time – over a million years – with little population growth, we lived in small territorial tribes competing against other tribes for resources.

    In that battle for survival that has shaped human behavior we’ve learnt to categorize other people as being either of our tribe (us) or the others (them), as social animals we’ve evolved to practice empathy in dealing with us, and SOM to deal with them, religion was useful for accentuating both the division between tribes and unity within tribes, the practice of categorizing people as us or them is not a shallow cultural aspect of humans, it’s a deep and immaleable instinct.

    In more resent times, through technological progress, two things have changed 1. the availability of resources has changed dramatically, so the battle for survival is no longer the brutal zero sum game it used to be, we can be richer, and our population can grow 2. the size of our tribes has expanded, where once there were tribes of a hundred or so there are now tribes of millions and hundreds of millions.

    The result is that SOM is no longer a winning strategy between competing villages, because the neighboring village is now within our tribe and the morality of tribe now far larger nation tribe would be imposed on anyone employing SOM, and that’s what happens, such people are called criminals and if caught they’re punished.

    Today we’ve reached the point where we’re transitioning from being tribes of millions and hundreds of millions to a tribe of 7.5 billion, this process is illustrated with the acceptance of a morality on war crimes and the implementation of measures to punish those guilty of such crimes.

    Trade and tourism, sport, family links and friendships, international agreements and business are tying us all together, the result is that for an increasing number of Humans most people on the planet are now us, the number continuing to see people outside their own country as them is now very small.

    It has gotten to the point where it’s only the fanatical few: Islamist, xenophobes, isolationists and hate mongers that continue to see SOM as a strategy for the future.

  • Cotour

    I understand your statement, you make sound observations about tribe, and us and them, but to me it is a bit too intellectualized.

    It seems that you are fully embracing the globalist / internationalist / Leftist / Soros, “borderless” world model, when there are plenty of people especially in America that disagree with your conclusion. The Leftists in power now, and make no mistake about it they are leftists hiding under the Liberal Democrat label, are pushing as hard as they can to accomplish what you envision with the time that they have left? Are these your observations or are you an adherent and promoting it?

    Which ever you are I think this “utopia” (if that in deed is what you are communicating) you describe is much further away IMO than you seem to believe. As a matter of fact it is so far away that it is not even worth discussing because what you describe is Marxism / socialism and I for one as an American without question reject the model and speak out against it at every chance that I have because it is a BS happy time fantasy.

    Come to America to become an American, but do not ever attempt to come to America and make America into where you have just come from. America is unique on the planet because of the Constitution. Promote that all country’s should adopt it and I am right along with you. Tell me that I have to surrender it for some other “better” mode of operation and there will trouble.

    If you are indeed an adherent I suggest you better understand human nature and American history in general because what you are speaking of is what will set the real silent majority off in this country.

    Let us not be naive.

  • Cotour

    This statement:

    “Today we’ve reached the point where we’re transitioning from being tribes of millions and hundreds of millions to a tribe of 7.5 billion,”

    Tribes of hundreds of millions? To one tribe of 7.5 billion?

    You have been watching too many movies or are a recent product of today’s modern university system, this “tribe” that you describe can only be the result of one thing, communism.

    When did you graduate?

    Do you really believe that we are all wishing to turn the entire earth into a “beautiful” communal existence? Do you really believe that that is a reality?

    Why do you think the Second Amendment exists? Are you familiar with the Constitution at all?

  • wayne

    Cotour– Andrew’s 7.5 billion member tribe, sounds to me like some sort of collectivist one world government, dystopia, run by un-elected Mastermind’s. (for our own good, of course.)

    Andrew_W:

    –I’d be interested in your stance on the European Union, and is your homeland a member?

    [I’m primarily a Behaviorist with a little bit of Cognitive theory thrown in. (Theory is fun but I had to produce results to get paid, I learned to become a bit more eclectic in my older age compared to my purist-ways as a youth.)]

    Your thoughts on the broad category of “human behavior,” intrigue me. Would you give me an idea of which psychological school-of-thought, you would identify most closely?
    (If I’m hearing you correctly, I would trend toward not agreeing, at least in part, but I’m not sure as of yet.)

    I’m perfectly willing to engage with you on a number of Topics, but I get the sense you are pushing-buttons in some cases, for what end result, I do not know. From my experience, BtB is far from some sort of echo chamber and Mr. Z is, in my opinion, far more objective than I would ever be, on a whole range of topics. Contrary to how I may have presented myself in some threads, I remain persuadable on a wide range of subjects. Others involve core-beliefs and those are not subject to persuasion.)

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour.

    When I use the term “tribe” I’m not talking in political terms, I’m talking in social terms, the “us” and “them”

    In the environment mankind evolved in people outside your tribe were regarded with suspicion and hostility, people inside your tribe were assumed to be friendly, in a lot of places people would be tattooed or carry items on them identifying them as belonging to a tribe (gangs still do it). So forget all your comments about socialism, and world government, it has nothing to do with it, I’m talking about social and economic connectedness.

    To illustrate my point take Syria, it’s one country, but is at war with itself because the various groups don’t identify as belonging to the same tribe. You can also have people belonging to the same tribe but spread across many sovereign countries.

    Wayne, I see no need for Europe to be under one government, and think that it would be better that it wasn’t, ditto for the world, again, I’m talking about the increasing links between people the world over not super nation states ( I didn’t express my thoughts well when I mentioned nations in my previous comment).

  • Cotour

    Andrew W:

    I concur with most of your tribe / identity observations, but the rest of your previous argument appears to strongly promote Marxist / One World Government / Soros border less world doctrine.

    And now I see you walking that back reading your comment s to Wayne. I am a bit confused (lower case c)

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour.

    I think you’re a bit fixated on believing I’m on the political left Tests for peoples postion on the political spectrum usually ask questions about individual freedom, size of government, freedom of markets, civil liberties. They don’t usually ask: Do you think Muslims are out to destroy America? Do you think AGW is for real? Do you think, in global terms, that Humans will get along better with each other in the future?

    So I agree with the experts; views on Islam and AGW are not intrinsically left – right issues. Some people just want to make them left – right issues.

  • Cotour

    If you are going to focus on those two particular issues, AGW and Islam, they do seem to be pet left leverage issues. No?

    It is plainly understood (by me anyway) that besides what ever science actually indicates, either warming or cooling do to human activity, the left does have an agenda / plan of political control using it. And we all see how successful the integration of Islam with Western country’s is tending to go. Another plainly Liberal approach to this utopian world that you seem to be describing or questioning the future existence of.

    I judge and classify people based on the things that they state that they believe. The things that you are writing about, if I were to classify your words and what they communicate, I would reasonably have to classify those thoughts and questions as Liberal or Leftist, or at the minimum idealistic questioning.

    Like it or not people are classified depending on the position that they seem to support. We could have in depth discussions about each of those issues and eventually a subjective position of support and classification would reveal itself.

    One more thought, human beings are essentially the same today as they were probably for the last 75 thousand years + ? These concepts or human reorganization that you site for the most part assume that human beings need to be fundamentally different, and they are not. And so the only way to achieve those goals is really through force by government.

    Some levity: Liberals before they became leftists….. https://youtu.be/P8tfuBIutLI

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You truly have no idea of the history of the Middle East and Islam. Islam did not begin attacking the US and the West because of some simple act that was committed. Islam has been a scourge on the Earth since its founding. Its bad book is written to tell Muslims to be that scourge, even to the point of using deceit, such as pretending friendship when that pretense will suddenly disappear with a sneak attack. You have learned nothing from Afghanistan. Muslims keep their friends (other Muslims) close, and their soon-to-be victims closer (infiltration — Europe can tell you about that — oh, wait; Locallfluff and Alex have done just that in other threads). As you might note, Islam sees the world as two tribes.

    Wayne was right. Islam’s Barbary Pirates first attacked the US, which is why they are called “Leathernecks,” and why the song “From the Halls of Montezuma” has the part about the shores of Tripoli; it has to do with these pirates.

    Islam attacked and conquered Spain. It was when Spain finally drove them off that Columbus sailed the Ocean blue.

    Islam attacked “The Holy Land,” which is why the Crusades took place.

    Islam is the aggressor. Its bad book instructs it to be.

    Radicalization does not come from US occupation. Radicalization comes from the bad book. Indeed, it was the British and the French after WWI who decided that the way to prevent Islamic nations from waging war on the rest of the world was to strategically form borders in the Middle East to distract Islam. A millennium of bad experiences went into that decision, but you, Andrew_W, don’t know about any of that.

    The cause is Mohammad and his bad book. The current effect is terrorism. Previous effects were wars. Future effects will be doofuses defending the evils of Islam.

    Islam is a leftist, controlling, anti-liberty philosophy. For you to defending it means that you defend leftist ideology. AGW is also used by leftists to control what we say and do. Defending it while it has not been shown to be happening merely means that you defend leftist ideology. Please excuse us for misinterpreting your only comments on this site. Had you chimed in with comments on topics you agree with, we may have made more reasonable conclusions about your commitment to liberty and conservativism. As it is, you seem more like someone who wants people to think he is conservative, but has no idea what it is – just like Trump.

  • Wayne

    “War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”
    William Tecumseh Sherman

  • INSOMNiUS

    “Muslim countries are fighting ISIS, plenty of Muslim organizations around the globe condemn Islamist terrorism, millions of Muslim parents tell their kids ISIS is evil and that true Muslims do not support ISIS.”

    They can only feel safe doing whene they are living under democracy, especially in the west. It’s funny on how there are drastically less complainers who will point the finger at extremists when the extremists are the ones who hold the power.

    “Over the history of the major religions Muslims are responsible for no more, and arguably far less bloodshed than Christians, Buddhism and Taoism.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

    Maybe we should all learn to be more rational or maybe give up religion?

  • Andrew_W

    Edward: Islam has been a scourge on the Earth since its founding. Its bad book is written to tell Muslims to be that scourge, even to the point of using deceit, such as pretending friendship when that pretense will suddenly disappear with a sneak attack.

    Radicalization does not come from US occupation. Radicalization comes from the bad book. Indeed, it was the British and the French after WWI who decided that the way to prevent Islamic nations from waging war on the rest of the world was to strategically form borders in the Middle East to distract Islam.

    On what sources do you base your conclusions?

    As it is, you seem more like someone who wants people to think he is conservative,

    I certainly don’t see myself as a conservative, try classical liberalism, conservatives are people try to ignore change or new information that dictates a need for change.

    Islam attacked and conquered Spain. It was when Spain finally drove them off that Columbus sailed the Ocean blue.

    Islam attacked “The Holy Land,” which is why the Crusades took place.

    Islam is the aggressor. Its bad book instructs it to be.

    Bob tried to tell me off for referencing history, but since you’re inviting historical comparisons:

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

    You can see that in historical terms, Christians, Japanese, Chinese and Mongols can all claim to be far better at killing lots of people than Muslims.

  • Andrew_W

    INSOMNiUS, I like the cartoon, I’m not a believer that religion is the cause of wars so much as that when disputes over resources or territory arise everyone runs to their God, because it’s supposed to be easier to win when Gods on your side.

  • Andrew_W

    Edward You have learned nothing from Afghanistan.

    What a bizarre country to pick as an example of Muslim aggression, a country that’s been invaded by the Mongols, the British the Russians and America. How Dare Those Afghan Muslims Fight against people invading their country!

  • wayne

    Andrew_W:

    Conservatives are Classical Liberals. That’s the word we used before Progressives co-opted the word Liberal. I don’t know what the term means in your homeland but you’re functioning under mistaken information as far as the USA.

    (The media-elite narrative here, is that “conservatives” are religious, luddite, KKK followers. Have you bought into that distortion or what, I sincerely can’t tell?)

    And as you well know— “conservative” is not a ‘right-wing thing,’ In European Parliament’s, the radical fringe nationalist parties were assigned the physical location to the right of chair. Somehow our elites transmogrified history and taught our children that National Socialism for example, was “right-wing ideology,” when in fact they are radical-left on the political spectrum.

    “Conservative’s” value what-we-know-works. We value functional Tradition, stable Culture, and the rule of law. We don’t oppose change, we appose dysfunctional change for the sake of change. We don’t censor books, confiscate guns, redistribute wealth, or force people to buy health-insurance. That’s what the current Administration does, but that’s not what America or “Conservative’s” are.

    Communists can all claim to be far better at killing than anyone in history.
    I’m not seeing in your wiki-list, the 100 million people murder by communist ideologies in the 20th century.

    I’m sorta befuddled by your general line of reasoning on a number of topics. Maybe its just me, but I don’t think so.
    As someone here once said, “tone is difficult to judge in text.” And I’m well aware that 60% of all communication is non-verbal.

  • Andrew_W: It is fascinating how you keep harping on ancient history as an excuse for the insane violence being committed today by madman in the name of Islam, financed by Islamic nations like Iran. It is also fascinating how you seem to have this enormous blind spot when it comes to the bigotry and hatred coming from the Islamic world, mostly from the Middle East. I offered you a video of a Hama MP man expressing hate for Jews and Israel, and you see nothing there. To you, all he is doing is complaining about the injustices imposed on him by Israel, even though Israel unilaterally abandoned Gaza, giving it back to the Palestinians so that they could have their own state.

    And what did the Palestinians do once they had their own state? They elected Hamas to be their leaders, men like this Hamas MP, who immediately turned Gaza into an armed camp from which to lob missiles into Israel as well as launch terrorist attacks into Israel that killed innocent women and children.

    The issue isn’t what was done 1000 years in the past, or even just 50 years ago. What matters is what is happening now. The Arabs in the Middle East might have some justifiable beefs, but they have shown no interest in working out peaceful solutions. Instead, they are only interested in violence and hate and killing Jews, and do it in the name of their religion. And sadly, it appears that religion gives them ample ammunition for that hate and violence.

  • Alex

    Wayne: Good comment about being conversative. Thanks.

  • Andrew_W

    Wayne, I disagree that American Conservative = Classical Liberal.

    https://msu.edu/user/hallc/george/libvscon.html

    [quote, Hayek (1976)]
    Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place.

  • Andrew_W

    Bob, it’s weird that when Edward points to ancient history to condemn Islam, you then condemn me for pointing out to him that a lot of his beliefs about ancient history are poorly founded.

    If he goes on to claim that Female Genital Mutilation is all because of Islam, will it be OK with you if I point out that FGM is a cultural practice that predates both Islam and Christianity, and today it is still practiced by those holding “traditional beliefs”, as well as Christians and Muslims?

  • Andrew_W: I only note that you seem to have this enormous blindspot about the evils of Islam today. I noticed this as well in your comments regarding my Israeli posts, which outlined clearly in great depth the differences between the Israeli efforts to live in peace and the Arab efforts to commit war and to destroy Israel.

    You say you read my links but your response to them clearly shows you did not read them very closely. You wrote,

    I read all your links, I usually do in a discussion, and again you ignore cause and effect, there was history leading up to the present, the Jewish and Muslim people in Israel, Gaza and the West bank do not share the same experiences from the same perspective and so their attitudes towards each other are different, you make the point that Israel and the occupied territories are far less violent than the rest of the world probably thinks – great, and I’m probably safe in saying that over the last few decades there’s probably a lot more acceptance amongst Palestinians of how things are, and less desire to violently continue the fight than their once was. [emphasis mine]

    Had you really read my essays carefully, you would have read my conclusion, as follows, from my Feb 14, 2013 essay, which clearly shows I am not “ignoring the cause and effect” created by the original UN partition of Palestine.

    One last thought. In general, I have never been enthused by the partition of Palestine as imposed by the United Nations in 1948. Driven by good intentions (Oh that phrase!) after the Holocaust in World War II, the members of the U.N. tried to give the Jewish people a home that they could call their own.

    The problem is that they divided Palestine along ethnic and religious lines. They literally created an apartheid state, right from the beginning, with one state devoted to those who were Jewish and the second state devoted to those who were Muslim.

    Such a division — nowadays dubbed by naive politicians the “two-state solution” — is always a problem, as it almost guarantees that at some point in the future each state is going to forced to treat those not of their particular sect as second class citizens. For if the population of Israel becomes dominated by Muslims, how then can one still call that a Jewish state?

    Though I do not believe for an instant that the PLO was sincere in its demand for a single Palestinian state where both Jews and Arabs live peaceably, this really is the only true solution to the Israeli conflict. Palestine should be a single state, and the question of whether you are a Jew, Muslim, or Christian should be irrelevant to its existence.

    Is this possible? Is it even realistic? I sincerely doubt it, given the religious importance of Jerusalem and the history of the past six decades. Nonetheless, the Israelis have at least shown that it can be done, if only partly, if you make the effort. As I have noted already, in Israel both Jews and Muslims are given full rights as citizens. In Israel at least there is an effort to treat all human beings equally with honor and justice.

    When the Arab Palestinians finally show some signs of doing the same, only then will we finally see a glimmer of hope that “peace and serenity between all of Jerusalem’s residents” will be possible.

    The problem with your view of the Middle East and the Islamic world is that the existence of Israel, imposed by the UN on Palestine, is the only cause and effect you are willing to see. You leave out the cause and effect resulting from the language and nature of the Koran, which you repeatedly show great ignorance about, and which has resulted in almost 30,000 terrorist attacks worldwide since 2001. You leave out the cause and effect of the bigotry and hatred for Jews that exists in the leadership of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

    In fact, you leave out many other important details, dismissing them as you are wont to do, because they make your analysis faulty, or shallow, or incomplete.

    The bottom line is that there are several million Jewish Israelis now living in Israel. They are not going away, unless someone commits genocide. A reasonable position for the Arabs to take would be to accept this fact and work to live together somehow. That is not what they are doing. They have no interest in doing so. They want those Jewish Israelis gone, and many in the Arab leadership are quite willing to commit genocide to make that happen.

    It is too bad you refuse to recognize that. I guess you will have to have some Islamic terrorists attack your nation, your home, and kill some of your friends, as has happened to me and to many others in the United States, in Israel, and in France and Europe, for the reality to finally strike home. Sadly, by then it will likely be too late.

  • Andrew_W

    Bob: To you, all he is doing is complaining about the injustices imposed on him by Israel, even though Israel unilaterally abandoned Gaza, giving it back to the Palestinians so that they could have their own state.

    And what did the Palestinians do once they had their own state? They elected Hamas to be their leaders, men like this Hamas MP, who immediately turned Gaza into an armed camp from which to lob missiles into Israel as well as launch terrorist attacks into Israel that killed innocent women and children.

    Bob, the Palestinians are not alone in feeling that they are a people disenfranchised by aggressors, there are plenty of others. I guess you think that North American indigenous people should also be grateful that they still have a few reservations – I assume you attribute the fact that high suicide rates, rampant alcoholism and other social miladies run rampant in those populations to some sort of religious or genetic predetermination?

    And of cause Australian aboriginal people also have the same problems as the North American indigenous people, oh, and Black Americans also aren’t doing so well compared to America’s white population, I assume you believe that history has nothing to do with that disparity either, and that you attribute the different attitudes and demographics of those populations not to history but to genetics or religion and yes the same case can be made (though to a slightly lesser extent) with the Maori population in NZ.

    The only difference between the Palestinians and those other peoples I mention is that those stubborn Palestinians still haven’t given up, they’re about at the same stage the North American indigenous people were in the early 1800’s.

  • Andrew_W

    Bob, maybe on one point we’re not talking about the same thing, when I say you ignore cause and effect I’m referring to the effect on a societies reaction to past events, I don’t see any reference to that in your conclusion in your Feb 14, 2013 essay.

    You think I’m only seeing one side of the equation, but that’s because of who I’m debating, if it were some Palestinians I’d be arguing that they need to try to put the past behind them, that the best thing for their children would be for them to focus on encouraging their kids to do well in school, and to not load the troubles of the adult world onto them as that would only cause the disastrous society wide lack of self belief that’s wreaked the colonized societies I mention above.

    Regarding the Quran, I’ve spent a lot of time reading the passages (English version) that are held up by Islamophobes as proof that Muslims are supposed to subjugate those of other religions, there’s actually quite a small number of passages held up as proof, and there are other passages that contradict those. The passages used to portray Islam as war like are in sections that describe what is acceptable for Muslims when at war.

    If a treaty exists between Muslims and infidels the Quran expects Muslims to honor the treaty, if the infidels break the treaty through war, invasion of Muslim lands or other aggression, Muslims are duty bound to redress the breach until the infidel accepts an armistice.

    Every time Muslim nations are invaded the invaders bring into play passages in the Quran that will give some Muslims a reason for warfare.

    but that’s no different to what everyone else practices, invade any nation and you’re likely to find yourself in a war.

    Here’s a site that covers interpretations of the Quran that don’t get covered in the sites you usually read:

    http://www.discoveringislam.org/killing_infidels.htm

  • Andrew_W wrote: “The only difference between the Palestinians and those other peoples I mention is that those stubborn Palestinians still haven’t given up, they’re about at the same stage the North American indigenous people were in the early 1800’s.”

    Then you do justify the concept of genocide as pushed by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. I am glad we’ve gotten that straight.

    I repeat: The Jewish Israelis are not going away. I proposed that the Arabs figure out how to live with them. Since 1948 they have refused, continue to refuse, and instead repeatedly propose genocide as their solution. You apparently agree.

    Note too that in the other examples you gave from the United States — the American Indians and Black population — in both cases the American society has what I think is quite a reasonable track record in trying to deal with the problem. The important thing to remember always is that the United States has repeatedly tried (though not always succeeding) to find ways for everyone to live together, in justice and honor. That has generally been the goal. (Be warned: I have a degree in early American history, and know this subject I am sure far better than you.) There really is no other choice, unless you choose bigotry and genocide.

    Meanwhile, let us remember again the post that started this thread. Iran, a nation that has and continues to fund terrorist attacks throughout the world, was handed billions by the Obama administration with literally no strings attached. Iran, a nation whose leaders repeated call for “Death to Israel” and “Death to America”, now has been given enormous resources to make those calls for death to happen.

  • Andrew_W wrote: “You think I’m only seeing one side of the equation, but that’s because of who I’m debating, if it were some Palestinians I’d be arguing that they need to try to put the past behind them, that the best thing for their children would be for them to focus on encouraging their kids to do well in school, and to not load the troubles of the adult world onto them as that would only cause the disastrous society wide lack of self belief that’s wreaked the colonized societies I mention above.”

    Then you admit that you are a troll, that your goal here is merely to be disagreeable, to take up whatever side you can to stir up trouble.

    If you claim you are not a troll, then I have no idea what you are arguing about. Anyone who has read anything I — or anyone else who comments on this website — has written knows that we recognize the justifiable fruits of history, both good and bad. No one here denies it. We also recognize that some solutions (murder and oppression) are unacceptable, and we strive to recognize and condemn those who advocate those solutions.

    What the hell do you believe? From your comments I haven’t the faintest idea, other than a belief that disagreeing with people is fun!

  • wayne

    Andrew_W:

    You are going to compare American Indians, with Palestinians?

    If you are going to quote Hayek, why pull it from some blog? Why not from the source & in context? I’m intimately aware of the prevailing political bent at M.S.U. and vast majorities of the people who inhabit that realm.

    This is futile & tedious. You’re playing mind-games and/or you are just lacking a fundamental understanding of the ideals of this Country.

  • Andrew_W

    Bob I proposed that the Arabs figure out how to live with them. Since 1948 they have refused, continue to refuse, and instead repeatedly propose genocide as their solution. You apparently agree.

    You’ve been making a whole string of assumptions about my position simply because I’ve pointed out that Palestinian terrorism started as a result of the creation and expansion of Israel, you deny that it was a cause, you argue that Palestinian terrorism started for no reason other than you imagine that Muslims are supposed to kill other people, but you have been unable to explain why Islamic terrorism is based in Muslim population that have been displaced as a result of war and that the targets of that terrorism are the people in the countries that supported the wars that caused the displacement, why the vast majority of Muslims – who you’re convinced are dedicated to destroying non-Muslims – just carry on with their trade, sport and tourism with the rest of the world.

    I have made no moral judgments in the comments I’ve made here, I have not said it’s America’s fault or Israels fault, or the Palestinians fault, I just see people all acting and reacting in the way that people do.

    My entire point is that the problem is not in the religion, any of the religions because given the same situation, invasion and disenfranchisement by a stronger power, people of any faith would react as the Palestinians did, or as the Iraqi Sunni have. If the US or China or France were invaded by a greater power the people in those three countries would fight back, if they were overrun and much of the lands they considered theirs was taken they would fight, initially using conventional warfare, later using guerrilla warfare. And guess what, both France and China were overrun by more powerful neighbors and the people in those countries did fight back, first with conventional warfare, and later with guerrilla warfare.

    If the US were overrun the occupying power would also face guerrilla warfare, and if you’re going to argue that Americans would never be so immoral as to target innocent civilians, you’ve already been proven wrong.

  • Andrew_W

    Wayne, are you disagreeing with Hayek’s description of Conservatives? Are you disputing that Hayek said that? Are you somehow blaming the source for what Hayek said? That seems to be your argument, but that would be a logical fallacy.

    Bob, I can point to plenty of terrorism from around the world committed by non-Muslims, people who resorted to terrorism as a result of believing that their lands had been occupied and that they had been disenfranchised, there have been terrorists in countries on every continent, people of all imaginable faiths, all creeds, and obviously I’ll include indigenous peoples who fought colonization in todays nomenclature they too would be labeled terrorists.

    The Conservatives here are certain though that disenfranchisement has nothing to do with it.

  • Andrew_W

    Wayne, here’s a bit more on Hayek’s views on Conservatism:
    https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=vC2BDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=“paternalistic,+nationalistic,+and+power-adoring+tendencies”&source=bl&ots=YwEODB64EE&sig=fkoXfbgjTmEQUvTaETI2gXnk8Wk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiPipaHgYzPAhVV6GMKHWhFB-4Q6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=%22paternalistic%2C%20nationalistic%2C%20and%20power-adoring%20tendencies%22&f=false

    I’ll see if I can find anything that somehow places it into a context other than that which is apparent from these sources.

  • Andrew_W

    I think the skepticism to AGW and hatred of Islam of people on this blog are Conservative perspectives, not right wing perspectives.
    I think that Hayek nailed it when describing Conservatives in the terms he does, and that when we take the term “conservatives” and use it in the dictionary sense of “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change” it is logical that in a radically different economic society to America, for instance an atheistic communist society or a traditionalist religious society, a “conservative” being one “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change” would be a good atheistic Communist, or a devout religious disciple, he would also, obviously, be opposed to the introduction and acceptance of science and beliefs that would upset the status quo, things like AGW and foreign religion, he would rationalize and construct all manner of justifications and excuses to deny and resist the adoption of any such science and beliefs that would lead to change within his country, his fear of change would come across as “paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring” he would also be “traditionalistic and anti-intellectual”and he would be xenophobic, because allowing the outside world in would be a certain source of change.

    Yep, Hayek’s nailed conservatism.

  • Andrew_W: “I can point to plenty of terrorism from around the world committed by non-Muslims.”

    Bah. No one here denies that others have committed terrorism. A strawman. A distraction from the main point here. You use it to avoid the scale of the problem that we presently face with Islamic terrorism.

  • Cotour

    Andrew W:

    What I gather from this massive pie fight is that you seem to see all religions as being equal. They are not.

    Islam is fundamentally different from all other religions and needs to be seen in that proper context. The Koran / Islam is basically a military type document that poses as purely a religion. Much like the Democrat party is seen by many Democrats in America as being Democrat, when in reality it has been usurped by the Leftist / Sixties radical Marxists posing as Democrats.

  • Andrew_W wrote: “I’ve pointed out that Palestinian terrorism started as a result of the creation and expansion of Israel, you deny that it was a cause, you argue that Palestinian terrorism started for no reason other than you imagine that Muslims are supposed to kill other people.” [emphasis mine]

    Now you are beginning to do things I will not tolerate on my website. I have highlighted your words above because they are patently false, and attempt to distort my words in ways that are downright dishonest. My previous comment, to which are now responding, specifically noted how I recognized the link between Palestinian violence and the creation of Israel. I did not “deny that it was a cause” as you now falsely claim. Nor did I claim that “Palestinian terrorism started for no reason other than you imagine that Muslims are supposed to kill other people”. I was specifically pointing out that while the creation of Israel was one cause, it was one of many.

    That argument however is inconvenient for you. It is “an inconvenient truth”, to coin a phrase, so you are thus forced to put false words in my mouth to justify your position. In fact, in your discussion with Edward you did much the same. That is unacceptable to me. I want an apology and a recognition from you now that you have erred here, badly.

    You like to argue. You don’t recognize what other people say that challenges your opinions. You distort what others say to make your arguments. Yup, you are a troll. Unless you mend your ways soon I might feel compelled to ban you. And I would hate to do that, because I like hearing alternative points of view, intelligently argued. Sadly, you are increasingly showing me that you don’t what this means.

  • Cotour

    Andrew W: This is the thinking that is in the process of destroying, not rebuilding or reformulating the world:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/lagarde-says-globalization-s-benefits-need-to-be-shared-by-all

    This model through its logic forces socialism on those who reject it and will in the end result in chaos. Socialism’s general nature is to be open ended model without any natural feed back systems in place ala governments corrupt oversight. No reasonable human being would design such a system and attempt to run it, government however would and does.

  • wayne

    Andrew_W–

    From the Discovering islam site you reference,– “in coordination with the End Times Research Center.”

    “The latest research of End Times Research Center indicates that the first phase of the End of Time will start (and the Mahdi will emerge) most likely in year 2016 (or 2017), in-sha-Allah (if Allah is willing). ”

    If that’s not firmly in the mental-illness spectrum, you can petition my State to pull my license.

    –30–

  • Cotour

    What ever you belief is about Islam in theory, this will more than likely be how it plays out in reality with real people.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1775496/massive-european-civil-war-predicted-by-scholar-of-islam-who-says-jobless-young-muslims-are-increasingly-turning-to-radical-groups/

    Freedom / the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

  • Andrew_W

    Bob, I apologize for the offense I caused.

    In my defense, I have been thinking exclusively in terms of terrorism, and almost entirely using the term “terrorism”, in the comment you reference where you feel I misrepresented you, you used the word “conflict”, it was not my intension and I do not and have not disputed that you accept the creation and expansion of Israel created the conflict in those lands.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour: Islam is fundamentally different from all other religions and needs to be seen in that proper context. The Koran / Islam is basically a military type document that poses as purely a religion.

    This is the area that we need to focus on in this discussion.

    Have you read the Quran? What sources do you use when making that assessment of the Quran.

    The Quran it long, like the Bible it has a lot of passages covering pretty much all areas of Human activity, some parts appear to contradict other parts, Islam is full of scholars who argue forever over what various passages mean individually and in relation to each other.

    As with the Bible it is easy to take individual passages and interpret them out of context. People with an agenda can and do do exactly that.

    Heres and example of how it can be done with he Bible:
    Out of context: “For you will heap burning coals on his head, And the LORD will reward you.”

    Man those Christians are nasty SOBs!

    In context: “If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; 22For you will heap burning coals on his head, And the LORD will reward you.”

    Oh, it might have something to do with shaming your enemy, rather than literally roasting his head.

  • Andrew_W

    Bob: Bah. No one here denies that others have committed terrorism. A strawman. A distraction from the main point here. You use it to avoid the scale of the problem that we presently face with Islamic terrorism.

    Now we have to ask (1) if there has been greater cause for some Muslims to turn to terrorism than people of other religions and (2) if, where others have had equal cause, have they had equal opportunity and (3) if there have been the same numbers of people with equal cause and equal opportunity to turn to terrorism.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour: This is the thinking that is in the process of destroying, not rebuilding or reformulating the world:

    I disagree with her suggestion of increasing the minimum wage, that just leads to higher unemployment amongst those able to earn minimum wage.

    I agree that free trade is the way to go but I recognize that that will cause transfer of low skill occupations to low wage economies, I’m with Adam Smith though in that trade creates other jobs and in a high wage economy those jobs will be higher wage, so training up is required.

    We have seen increasing trade with low wage economies cause both of those things.

    I think a structural problem does exist in Western countries in that there is an increasing gap in wealth and income, I think that problem could in part be addressed through changing the broad tax base from income tax to a tax on trade-able assets, this would simplify the process of employing people, massively reduce the complexity and cost of collecting revenue, and motivate people to invest in capital goods over luxury and status goods, also any tax on transactions will reduce the number of those transactions, income tax has become a tax on employment.

    This is all based on a system discussed in Bob Heinlein’s book The Number of the Beast.

  • Andrew_W

    Wayne, some of us think all religion is nuts, the only difference is in degrees, and I think you’re going back to that logical fallacy of attacking the source rather than the contents. Also, most Muslims don’t adhere to claims of an imminent End of Time, any more than most Christians believe in an imminent Rapture.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour What ever you belief is about Islam in theory, this will more than likely be how it plays out in reality with real people.

    If Europe is going to let in people of different cultures and religions I agree that if they are unable to provide the resources to enable those people to integrate in to their society rather than allow them to become isolated in ghettos they’re asking for trouble.

    I think though that the implication that virtually the entire younger generation will become terrorists is ridiculous, though if they’re left without employment and hope for a brighter future a lot of them will end up involved in crime.

  • Andrew_W: The questions you raise miss the point. Plenty of people in the past have had plenty of ample reasons, similar to those of the Middle Eastern Arabs, to be very unhappy when immigrants overran their societies. Almost none however turned to committing the types of random acts of vicious terrorism we have seen from Islam in the past two decades.

    I repeat: Bigotry and downright hate are major factors here, something you seem unable to recognize. It is called antisemitism by some, but I prefer the more general terms, since what difference does it make what race or religion you hate, you still hate for bigoted reasons. I am alsoo beginning to wonder why you seem so unable to recognize or even admit to this factor.

    I repeat: Islam itself is a major factor here, far more than you care to admit. It is fundamentally different than the language of other religions, partly because of its historical origins (written for a warlike tribal people bent on building an empire) and partly because of what appears to be the mad nature of the religion’s founder. You can rationalize this as much as you want, but I am sorry, no religion has any similar track record even close to the hateful indiscriminate violence we have seen in the past three decades, committed in the name of Islam.

    You need to study a bit more about Islam. You seem eager to excuse the religion for the evils perpetrated in its name. I meanwhile wonder why its own practitioners have not been so eager to do the same.

  • Andrew_W: Are you actually apologizing, or are you giving me one of those modern fake apologies, expressing sorrow that you might have hurt my feelings over something you said that you still believe to be true? To me, this apology sounds more like the latter, and if so, is not really worth the electrons it is written on.

    I mean it:. You have to start to discuss these issues based on what others write and say, not on what you wish they had written and said. For example, you still refuse to consider or even acknowledge any of the other points I have made. All that matters in your mind is that Israel was created, and thus that explains all the terrorism we have seen since the 1960s.

    I expect better from my readers. Right now you are not meeting those expectations.

  • Andrew_W

    Bob, I fully admit that I could have put my case better, and I have been genuinely struggling to define your position, as have the people here been struggling to understand mine. Time is not my friend, as is probably evident in the lack of proofreading I’ve put into my comments.
    I want to steer the conversation towards clear areas of disagreement and get away from the tangled mess of misconceptions above. You say I’ve misrepresented you, for that I apologies, but it cuts both ways, you’ve just said: “All that matters in your mind is that Israel was created, and thus that explains all the terrorism we have seen since the 1960s.”
    That is a misrepresentation, I thought I’d been clear that I attribute the Palestinian terrorism to a reaction by disenfranchised Palestinian and the Islamist terrorism we’ve seen since 2001 to the US invasion and the subsequent mess in Iraq, which has been a huge disruption to the lives of the Sunni in that country. Israel and Palestine have nothing to do with the cause of the Islamist terrorism we’ve seen this century.

  • Andrew_W

    Bob Plenty of people in the past have had plenty of ample reasons, similar to those of the Middle Eastern Arabs, to be very unhappy when immigrants overran their societies. Almost none however turned to committing the types of random acts of vicious terrorism we have seen from Islam in the past two decades.

    OK, which people do you see as having had equal cause, opportunity and been affected in equal numbers to the Muslims committing terrorist acts?

  • Andrew_W asked, “OK, which people do you see as having had equal cause, opportunity and been affected in equal numbers to the Muslims committing terrorist acts?”

    Heh. Well, the Jewish people immediately come to mind, as they have been treated pretty badly almost everywhere, and if anyone wanted to commit the same kinds of terrorists acts in response they surely had cause. Instead, they pray, a lot, and make jokes in Yiddish, and try to find ways to live with the rest of the world. (I speak from personal experience.)

    Then of course we could talk about the various oppressed people in the Soviet Union. Rather than commit violence, they managed a very and remarkable overthrow in the late 1980s with very few deaths.

    We could also talk about the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church fought back, obviously, but it didn’t utilize the kinds of barbaric terrorism we have seen from Islam in the past two decades. If anything it responded sanely by reforming many of the abuses within itself that had instigated the Protestant Reformation.

    The American Indians during the Indian Wars of the 1800s did commit some of the same kind of terrorist acts. These acts however did them more harm in the end, not good, as it made many Americans less forgiving to them for their problems. In the end, however, they have found it is far better to figure out how to live together, build casinos, and make a lot of money.

    I can name many other examples. There are some that can be called comparable to the modern wave of Islamic terrorism. I have never denied this. In truth, all of this is completely irrelevant and a distraction, since all of this past history is past history. The problem of Islam is now, and it is quite acute, and it is also sadly closely tied to the religion itself. You can rationalize this and avoid this fact as much as you want, but the fact remains.

  • Andrew_W

    I don’t think the Jewish people ever had the numbers the opportunity and cause all lined up for them at the same time, other than in ancient times on a couple of occasions and post WW2 when terrorism was used to force the British out of Palestine.

    The “various oppressed people” in the USSR were in the position of having stability in their lives, I don’t know of any massive disenfranchisement of land by one people against another, on the whole their situation was no worse than that of Soviet Russians.

    The Protestant Reformation I know very little about, Wiki: “The Reformation led to a series of religious wars that culminated in the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), which devastated much of Germany, killing between 25 and 40% of its population.”

    I’ve know idea if there’s even any record of the extent of what would now be called terrorism happened during the period, or how you could even compare the ability of terrorists then and now to create terror, we can call a guy killing people with a knife today a terrorist, are you claiming – what, that knives weren’t used widely to kill people in the name of religion during the Reformation?

    The American Indians during the Indian Wars of the 1800s did commit some of the same kind of terrorist acts. These acts however did them more harm in the end, not good, as it made many Americans less forgiving to them for their problems.

    I’d argue that the Palestinians are reaching a similar conclusion, internationally it’s a long time since they’ve targeted the international community, now their beef seems to be only with Israel, like you I hope, unlike you (if I read you right) I expect that the situation in Palestine and Israel will continue to come off the boil.

  • Andrew_W wrote, “I’d argue that the Palestinians are reaching a similar conclusion, internationally it’s a long time since they’ve targeted the international community, now their beef seems to be only with Israel, like you I hope, unlike you (if I read you right) I expect that the situation in Palestine and Israel will continue to come off the boil.”

    You not only exhibit here a deep ignorance of the real situation in Israel and the West Bank, you continue to show your absolute unwillingness to acknowledge, recognize, or even admit in the slightest the pervasive existence of bigotry and hatred within the Palestinian and Arab community. Things if anything have worsened in recent years, not improved. The bigotry and hatred of Jews and Israel in the Palestinian leadership has grown both in extent and power, and it has been increasingly aided by money and support from various outside Islamic sources, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.

    That you are unaware of this does not surprise me, however, as it does not fit with your theories, and therefore it must not exist.

  • Andrew_W

    Bob The problem of Islam is now, and it is quite acute, and it is also sadly closely tied to the religion itself. You can rationalize this and avoid this fact as much as you want, but the fact remains.

    Bob, Muslims have been following the Quran for about 1400 years, the words of the Quran have not changed over that time, the number and extent of conflicts between Muslims and other people have gone up and down depending on specific circumstances, and the same can be said of Christianity and of the Chinese and Japanese.

    You’re going to say “ancient history” but if you are going to blame the religion rather than specific situations and times for the various levels of conflict you are cherry picking, you’re acting no differently to someone pointing out that during the conquest of the Americas Christian nations caused the deaths of millions of people, and then claiming that as proof that Christianity is barbaric, rather than acknowledging that those deaths were a result of events of that time.

    Above I’ve asked Cotour if he’s read the Quran and what sources he uses when making his assessment of the Quran, because if you and he are using only sites and sources like “Religion of Peace”, how can you seriously claim objectivity?

  • Cotour

    “If Europe is going to let in people of different cultures and religions I agree that if they are unable to provide the resources to enable those people to integrate in to their society rather than allow them to become isolated in ghettos they’re asking for trouble.”

    Its not about resources, its about assimilation. There is no desire to assimilate, they see being where ever they are as an opportunity to fulfill the directive of the Koran, MAKE IT YOUR OWN.

    They come here, to get away from what they have there, only to recreate here what they have fled from there.

    There is no equivalency between Islam and any other religion, none. As harsh and uncomfortable as that may be to your sensibility and need to justify and normalize it to hear. The agenda you seem to be promoting is the Globalist agenda that promotes this Star Trek, no borders, One World Government planet. Pure Leftist doctrine BS.

    AND while there are majority of Muslims that enjoy life in Western societies and that is fine (as long as they reject the core of their belief system), but. When push come to shove it will be the minorities of radicals that will in the end dominate the masses because that’s what the book directs.

    How many Western Muslims do you see / hear speaking out against the radicals? The answer is very few to none, and it will not change, ever. And the ones who do speak out are literally in fear for their lives, with good reason.

    You are in need of some expanded real world education on the subject.

    http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/49579.H_A_R_Gibb

    I still can not quite figure out your angle on this subject, you seem to want to play on both sides, and there can only be one side. But an interesting and volatile conversation to say the least.

    PS: We are talking about religion and our Constitution as one of the main foundations protects the individuals right to it. BUT, the Constitution is not a suicide pact! Some things in the end will be irreconcilable.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You asked: “On what sources do you base your conclusions?

    All of them.

    You wrote: “I certainly don’t see myself as a conservative, try classical liberalism, conservatives are people try to ignore change or new information that dictates a need for change.

    Which just goes to show that I am right: you don’t know what conservativism is.

    Just because you found a definition of “conservative” that you like, from Hayek, does not mean that it is the correct definition. I found several definitions in the dictionary, and other dictionaries may have additional definitions. Which is correct?

    You wrote: “You can see that in historical terms, Christians, Japanese, Chinese and Mongols can all claim to be far better at killing lots of people than Muslims.

    Ah, yes. The relative moralism argument. This argument is typical of the modern liberal, not the classical liberal. You may be confused about your own philosophical leanings. This argument says that since some other groups did it in a time when it was accepted, it is OK for my group to do it, too, in modern times. Next, you will be saying that it is OK to gain land territory through war, to murder homosexuals, to treat women like chattel, and to murder or enslave non-believers, because those things were considered OK, by various groups, in the past.

    In order to rationalize the bad behavior of the Muslims, you resort to comparisons with past civilizations, not to modern civilized societies. You do not allow us, as a people, to grow and mature. Instead, wayne seems to be right about you thinking that conservatives resist all change, even when it is for the better.

    Your list of death tolls is the same one as earlier in this discussion, is as ineffectual as before, and misses the point, as it did before. Relative moralism does not make the immoral suddenly moral.

    You seem to be suffering from the fallacy of false equivalence. Actually, there are a multitude of fallacies in your arguments. In fact, you seem to argue a lot by using fallacious arguments. This strongly suggests that you are in deep over your head, arguing topics that you barely understand, using arguments that you heard someone else use successfully against people who also did not understand the topics, and when they don’t work with us, you panic.

    Since you like lists, you may want to study this one, so that you can learn what logical fallacies to avoid in the future:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

    Wayne’s comment was not a logical fallacy. To request context is not a fallacy. In fact, your suggestion that it is merely helps to prove his comment that you are playing mind games rather than arguing the topic at hand, and that helps to prove Robert’s comment that you are simply a troll, tossing hand grenades into otherwise civil discussions. You must find this enjoyable, as you keep it up for hours, even though your point (whichever one it may be) has not been supported as well as you think it has. You seem to be of the opinion that only your own arguments are correct and that everyone else is wrong — unless they agree with you. (I have known a lot of modern liberals who were also of that opinion.)

    As for Robert “telling you off” for referencing history, that is a discussion you are having with him, not me. You also did not pay attention to what he was saying, as he was not telling you not to discuss history. In fact, it was difficult to find where it was that you thought he was “telling you off” for referencing history, as I found no such comment on this thread. The closest that he came was to point out that past events do not change the reality of the immoral actions and attitudes of Muslims in recent decades.

    I wrote: “You have learned nothing from Afghanistan.
    You replied: “What a bizarre country to pick as an example of Muslim aggression, a country that’s been invaded by the Mongols, the British the Russians and America. How Dare Those Afghan Muslims Fight against people invading their country!

    Proving my point. Clearly, you do not know that Muslims have embedded themselves closely with US military men, then turn on them without warning, often times killing them. That was the topic of the paragraph, but you try distraction and redirection to hide that you lost that argument, or that you did not pay attention to it.

    You wrote: “If a treaty exists between Muslims and infidels the Quran expects Muslims to honor the treaty

    So, what happens if Muslims fail to honor such a treaty by pirating US ships off the Barbary Coast, or attacking US embassies — even to the point of invading the embassy and kidnapping the ambassador and staff (what US aggression set off those Muslims?) — or flying airplanes into buildings, or blowing up ships in harbor, or shooting up Christmas parties, or sniping people who are refueling their cars, or bombing a marathon, or … ? (You might say that I am cherry picking, but the list would be terribly long, and that is just for the US alone. Add in Europe and Israel, and the list would seem infinite.)

    Clearly, Muslims think that they are at war with the US, otherwise they would be honoring the peace. They also have been attacking us since before 2001, so the invasion of the country that sponsored the Muslim attack on the US, that year, is not the reason for Muslim attacks on the US. And it was hardly much of an invasion, as the US used mostly local — Afghani — fighters.

    You wrote to Robert: “You’ve been making a whole string of assumptions about my position simply because I’ve pointed out that Palestinian terrorism started as a result of the creation and expansion of Israel

    We have made these assumptions because you have failed to adequately explain your position. We only have what you say to guide our knowledge of your positions. Your poor argument techniques and insistence on limiting your comments to only certain arguments give us little to go by.

    As near as I can tell, you are justifying Palestinian terrorism by saying it is all the fault of the Israelis for getting their land back after the Muslims took it from them. You seem to extend this to all Muslim terrorism by suggesting that the US and Europe broke treaties; otherwise the Muslims would be ever so peaceable. However, unlike most of the world, rather than peacefully resolving disputes, as modern civilized people to, the Muslims take it upon themselves to violently resolve their disputes with unacceptable acts of barbarism.

    Despite your claim to the contrary, you justify this barbarity by blaming the victims for having broken treaties or otherwise committing acts of aggression.

    You wrote: “My entire point is that the problem is not in the religion, any of the religions because given the same situation, invasion and disenfranchisement by a stronger power, people of any faith would react as the Palestinians did

    So you are saying that when Christians have been murdered and driven from Muslim lands, these past few years, they reacted by committing acts of terror against the Muslims? And that the Israelis likewise commit acts of terror against the Palestinians who attack Israel?

    If the numbers of those affected are not equal, does that, in your mind, invalidate pointing out their lack of terror as a tactic? It only takes a few to commit terrorism. So far, 32 is the maximum number that I know of (an attack in France) and one is the minimum — the concept of the “lone wolf” is continually bandied about. Is not being murdered, churches destroyed, and driven from their land even more cause for violent retribution?

    Islamic terrorism is ubiquitous. As Robert pointed out, there have been tens of thousands of acts of Islamic terrorism since 2001 alone. There were plenty before then, too.

    How many pizza parlors or school buses full of kids have the Israelis blown up? Instead, the Israelis have gone far out of their way to avoid civilian casualties, yet it is liberals like you, Andrew_W, who blame the Israelis for defending themselves and justify the barbarous Palestinians, claiming the untruth that the Israelis would react the same, when the do not.

    You seem to be using the phrase: “equal cause, opportunity and been affected in equal numbers” as a straw man to invalidate any group that does not react with terrorism. I see no reason for cause, opportunity, or numbers to be a defining factor. Small groups can react with terrorism for imaginary reasons, if they are so inclined. And opportunity is a nebulous term to use. Who is to say that someone does not have opportunity? We certainly did not think there was an opportunity to fly commercial airliners into buildings until it actually happened.

    Palestine was not invaded by the Israelis. The United Nations bestowed the land upon them. You have rewritten history in order to make your point, but it did not happen as you would have us believe.

    In comparing Islam’s bad book with Christianity’s good book, you have failed to take context into account. You write about context, but the two books are not only different, but Robert is right that they are written differently and for different people. The style of writing is tremendously important. For instance, the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights is written such that government may never violate the rights of We the People. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is written such that it grants rights to people and gives a reason for those rights to not always apply (Article 29, part 3). These two documents may seem similar, but they are very different.

    The good book and the bad book are also written differently and also result in different attitudes of their practitioners.

    I believe that the point of Robert’s original post was to point out that terrorism has a lot more funding than it should have, and that is the fault of the current US administration. I don’t think that anyone thought that they were voting for increased terrorism when they voted for Obama.

    Terrorism, no matter the perceived wrong perpetrated upon the terrorist, is bad and counterproductive. It has always been so, as Robert pointed out. That Muslims continue and have expanded the use of terror means that they either do not understand that it is counterproductive or they have a different goal in mind than past terrorists.

    Meanwhile, your arguments continue to demonstrate that you are actually a modern liberal, not a classical one.

    wayne wrote to Andrew_W: “I’m sorta befuddled by your general line of reasoning on a number of topics. Maybe its just me, but I don’t think so.

    It is not just you, wayne.

  • Cotour

    The real world meets the theoretical world:

    1. https://youtu.be/2vWXZxxczp0

    2. https://youtu.be/LDigg0ia2Lc

    3. In England https://youtu.be/5FRpZZ4qnRw

    Andrew W you have some thinking to do.

  • Cotour

    The Leftist / Border less / Globalist long term agenda, U.N. Agenda 2030.

    https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

    Interpretaion: http://www.naturalnews.com/051058_2030_Agenda_United_Nations_global_enslavement.html

    This Leftist socialization plan for the world is under way, the primary requirement? Destroy the American Constitution. This is no BS, Andrew W, and is essentially what has been being discussed here on B to B, force the integration of cultures, destroy the family unit, cancel the Second Amendment, etc, etc.

    Hillary and her kind are the next in line to fulfill it.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour: Its not about resources, its about assimilation.

    Countries that put resources into refugees to help them adapt have less problems than those that don’t, think of it in terms of the investments companies put into the training and orientation of new staff.

    There is no equivalency between Islam and any other religion, none.

    What sources of information do you base that on? Have you looked at sites that explain the religion that aren’t dedicated to demonizing it?

    http://www.islamicity.org/8304/understanding-islam-and-muslims/#Does_Islam_tolerate_other_beliefs

    AND while there are majority of Muslims that enjoy life in Western societies and that is fine (as long as they reject the core of their belief system), but.

    The vast majority of Muslims get on fine with people of other beliefs, it’s a minority that see themselves as a war with the West.

    How many Western Muslims do you see / hear speaking out against the radicals? The answer is very few to none, and it will not change, ever. And the ones who do speak out are literally in fear for their lives, with good reason.

    Totally wrong, and I don’t see how you can claim any depth of knowledge on Muslims relationship to the West when you haven’t even Googled to find out if Muslim organisations condemn terrorism.

    I still can not quite figure out your angle on this subject, you seem to want to play on both sides, and there can only be one side. But an interesting and volatile conversation to say the least.

    The two sides are: 1. Those that are happy to see conflict and hatred towards other people, and 2. those that would rather people be left in peace to raise their families. Group 1 contains the Islamists and warmongers, group 2 is the other 90% of humanity. I’m in group 2.

    Regarding your 6:29pm comment.
    There are a lot of stupid people in the world, some even think that nuking Mecca and Medina is a good idea.

    Regarding your 6:49pm comment.
    If it’s directed at me it’s a strawman, as I’ve said the one tribe thing is about strong trade and social links, it’s about the psychology of how people see each other, not about political unity.

  • wayne

    Tediousness….

  • Andrew_W

    How do Muslims see as their religions requirements as to their attitudes towards non-Muslims, the vast majority claim that Muslims should endeavor to get along with non-Muslims and are offended by the claims that they’re supposed to be subjugating non-Muslims.The Quran says: God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just. (Quran, 60-8).
    A very different view to those that follow sites like Religion For Peace, so how do we explain this difference in perception?

    1. Most Muslims don’t even understand their own religion.
    2. Islamophobes don’t understand Islam.
    3. Muslims are lying about what their religion expects of them.

    Given the amount of their time they spend studying the Quran and the teachings of Mohammad 1 seems unlikely.
    Given how easy it is for Humans to rationalize hating “them” people outside their tribe 2 seems feasible to me.
    I’ve never been a fan of vast conspiracy theories, and over a billion Muslims lying about their faith to us so they can sneak up on us and spring the trap when the time is right is a conspiracy theory to dwarf all conspiracy theories.

  • Andrew_W. You live in a fantasy world. Your quote of the Koran is nice, but are you Jewish? I bet you are not. Have you been to Israel or the West Bank? I bet you have not. Declare yourself Jewish and try going to the Palestinian sectors. In fact, try visiting any of the Arab nations as a declared Jew. I dare you.

    You won’t of course. Anybody with any intellectual honesty — something you apparently lack — knows that these Muslim countries practice, by law, apartheid against Jews and other religions. You apparently don’t know this fact but if you are an openly Jewish person, especially Orthodox with a kippur and beard and the appropriate clothes, you will be not be allowed to enter these Muslim nations. And if you do somehow get there you will be faced immediately with bigotry and oppression. (This was one of the major points of one of my Israeli essays. I guess you either lied when you said you read it, or have dismissed it entirely because it doesn’t fit with your fantasy world and that is simply not permitted.)

    Are these countries following the Quran? Is Saudi Arabia, which follows this practice? Well, my research into the Quran says that they are. Are you aware of abrogation? This is the Islamic religious policy that gives more legitimacy to the later parts of the Quran over the earlier texts. The early verses, which tend to be more mild and tolerant, are thus superseded by the later verses, which are more intolerant and tend to demand total submission by non-believers.

    Once again, you make believe the bigotry and hatred that is widespread within the Islamic world doesn’t exist. I am beginning to wonder if this blind spot is not because you refuse to see it, but because maybe you agree with it. Do you? You sure seem willing to make excuses for it.

  • Cotour

    Andrew W:

    Like I said earlier, you seem a thoughtful intelligent person, but sometimes things are what they are and all of the well intentioned intellectualizing and explanation of the Islam / West issue is a fundamental false argument.

    Why do you think that now as opposed to some time in the past 1400 years its a good idea for the two ideologies to be freely mixed? Please explain that to me.

    I will explain it from my point of view: The West is more civilized the the Islamic world and the political agenda developed by Liberal thought is about to destroy the entire world as we know it. Is it just weakness? Is it just stupidity? I think, like I said earlier, its the intellectualization of something that should not be intellectualized.

    And if you happen to be a Muslim, and any other Muslim who happens to be in the West, and live a peaceful life, and accept the thinking and have assimilated to the West, I say good for you, welcome. But the two ideologies are what they are and need to have their segregation from each other until there is some kind of reformation / evolution of Islam. And we all know that that can never, ever happen.

    And we will boil this conversation down to that one word “NEVER”. Islam has no room for the kind of freedom that has been purposefully developed in the West, the two thought processes are fundamentally different and are natural enemies. The Lion can lay down with the lamb, but eventually the Lion eats the lamb. Its just his nature, its in his DNA :(

  • WAYNE

    “America has been fighting Islamists for longer than many realize. Even before independence was declared, American ships were pirated and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the “Dey of Algiers”—an Ottoman Islamist warlord ruling Algeria. When the colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American ships lost Royal Navy protection. A Revolutionary-War era alliance with France offered French protection to US ships, but it expired in 1783. Immediately US ships came under attack and in October 1784 the American trader “Betsey” was taken by Moroccan forces. This was followed with Algerians and Libyans (Tripolitans) capturing two more US ships in 1785.

    Lacking the ability to project US naval force in the Mediterranean, America tried appeasement. In 1784, Congress agreed to fund tributes and ransoms in order to rescue US ships and buy the freedom of enslaved US sailors.

    In 1786 Thomas Jefferson, then US ambassador to France, and John Adams, then US Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote of funding. To the US Congress these two future Presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims’ hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

    “…that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

    http://www.islam-watch.org/ThomasJefferson/Founding_Fathers_Fight_Islam.htm

  • wayne

    Mr. Z– excellent comment at 3:24pm. (I intend to re-read your Israeli Essays.)http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/bigotry-in-israel/

    Cotour: I’m going to have to counter-differ with your phrase, “a thoughtful intelligent person.” (but continue to stand in your corner on this one, in large measure.)

    Andrew_W:
    I can almost you hear you keyboarding up a storm, trashing Thomas Jefferson & John Adam’s over some “social-justice” “issue.” (If I’m wrong, I’m wrong and would withdraw the remark.)
    You come across to me as some sort of apologist for people who do bad things.

  • Andrew_W

    Bob, I like to flip things around when trying to determine if people are being bigoted or biased, people point fingers and shout “Islam does this”, I ask does the society or religion of the accuser behave a lot better, are there recent circumstances that apply to one group that don’t apply to the other, but perhaps did in the past? Is the accusation of persecution accurate?

    Do you do the same?

    Do you think that being Jewish likely makes someone more objective in their assessment of Islam?

    Are you aware of abrogation? This is the Islamic religious policy that gives more legitimacy to the later parts of the Quran over the earlier texts. The early verses, which tend to be more mild and tolerant, are thus superseded by the later verses, which are more intolerant and tend to demand total submission by non-believers.

    The verses usually referenced by sites critical of Islam are mainly in Surah 2, 8, 9 and 47 (47 refers to acceptable practices in times of war), when I look at later Surah I find innocent looking chapters like Surah 109.

    Perhaps you could reference the later chapters that you think demand total submission by non-believers.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour:
    Why do you think that now as opposed to some time in the past 1400 years its a good idea for the two ideologies to be freely mixed? Please explain that to me.

    There have been Christians in Muslim countries for the entirety of those 1400 years, some of the oldest churches in Christianity are in countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria, outside of ISIS those churches continue to be respected by the majority Muslim populations. How have mosques in Christian countries faired over the same period?

    The West is more civilized the the Islamic world and the political agenda developed by Liberal thought is about to destroy the entire world as we know it.

    Perhaps you think that the Christian world should have stuck with the conservative principles of centuries ago, where women were property, gays were persecuted, adulterers were executed, if the Christian world is more “civilized” than the Muslim world it’s because it has adopted liberal principles. (did you see the film The Imitation Game? It was so recent, in the ’50’s, that Turing was labeled a pervert and punished for his homosexuality).

    Islam has no room for the kind of freedom that has been purposefully developed in the West, the two thought processes are fundamentally different and are natural enemies.

    Pew does surveys asking Muslims from various countries questions relevant to their interpretation of their religion, the results vary remarkably country to country, so it would be wrong to claim that there is only one rigid interpretation of Islam.

  • Andrew_W

    Wayne, I’ve studied the Barbary pirate saga, I think the pirates broke treaties when their religion says they should not have, and I think the Ambassador was not representing the Quran accurately. Might have something to do with them being pirates and diplomats.
    I doubt I’ll have to work very hard to find cases of Christian pirates and diplomats committing piracy, rape and murder and using lying as a negotiating tool.

  • wayne

    Andrew_W:

    What, exactly, do you want me, or anyone else here, to say?

    Your only intention appears to be an intent to incite me, or others, into “something.”

    (I’m reminded of Fritz Zwicky’s favorite insult. Google it.)

  • Andrew_W

    You people are starting from the premise that the others “them” in this case Muslims, are fundamentally different to “us”, and the Islamists use exactly the same argument.

    People have done that often throughout history, it’s the prequel to slavery, hate and killing.

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Pastor Martin Niemöller

  • Andrew_W

    I just want people to try to get away from just accepting the narrative of their in-group.

  • Andrew_W: I repeat: You live in a fantasy world. I have given you ample evidence that in Israel, Muslims and Jews are treated equally by law, while in Islamic countries they are not. Who is actually doing the oppression here?

    Discussing any issue with you is a complete waste of time. Niemoller’s quote is of course valid, but no one here, including Wayne, is advocating genocide. We are noting the reality of the Islamic world’s modern barbaric behavior, and are tired of people making excuses for it. It needs to be treated like we treated the Nazis, the Fascists, and the southern slave-owners, harshly, strongly, and demanding total victory, so that the decent people in the world, both Jewish and Muslim, can go about their business in peace.

    You prefer to wear blinders, as did the British and French in the 1930s. Hitler’s Mein Kampf was very clear about what he wanted to do. And just like you, good people in the civilized world then decided to ignore it, because they didn’t want to face reality. Neither do you. (Note that in these last few sentences I am being generous. I do not dismiss the possibility that your complete unwillingness to admit to any bigotry in the Islamic world suggests that you yourself are a bigot and support that bigotry. It will be up to you to convince me otherwise. So far you have failed to do so.)

  • Andrew_W

    I do not dismiss the possibility that your complete unwillingness to admit to any bigotry in the Islamic world suggests that you yourself are a bigot and support that bigotry.

    Minor bigotry happens everywhere, did you know that the Liberian constitution prohibits any person other than ethnic Negroes from being or becoming citizens of that country? Of course there’s bigotry in the Islamic world, being Jewish might make things difficult but being gay could be far worse, I Am Not Putting Islam up on a pedestal, overall members of that faith in most Muslim countries are several decades behind the West in terms of liberalization of discriminatory laws and attitudes, my objection is the claims of absolutism, that Islam can never be harmonious with other religions, when in the world today far more than 90% of Muslims have no problems with people of other faiths.

  • Cotour

    Andrew W:

    Simply, you must compare Islam and the Koran against the Constitution. The Constitution is the highest expression of secular individual freedom that the West has ever achieved, Western / American “religion” if you will. Islam and the Koran is the “Constitution” of the Muslim world and it rejects every word and sentence of the Western document. They are entirely and fundamentally different. That is the essential concept that you are for some reason choosing to ignore. That world does not exist.

    Which does not mean that Muslims can not live in the West or in America, they can, but only if they abandon that fundamental part of their religion that rejects an individuals freedom (including women) and the more violent and perverse aspects of their patriarchal “religion”. And if they are unable or refuse then they must not be able to participate in it because they will for ever upset and be offended by it.

    Arguing about the Jews and Israel is another conversation, first the fundamentals of each belief system must be understood, and when you properly understand them you come to understand that the one must destroy the other. They are for the most part, long term, irreconcilable.

    I am interested in your motivation, back round, goal etc. in your tenacious insistence that they are what you want them to be. What are you attempting to sell here and why?

  • Edward

    Andrew_W
    You wrote: “Perhaps you think that the Christian world should have stuck with the conservative principles of centuries ago

    And once again, you show your ignorance of conservativism.

    You wrote: “I doubt I’ll have to work very hard to find cases of Christian pirates and diplomats committing piracy, rape and murder and using lying as a negotiating tool.” and “Minor bigotry happens everywhere

    But you tried to pass off Islam as being trustworthy and good. It turns out not to be so, and you missed that your own point has been destroyed by the truth. Once again, you choose to use relative moralism to make piracy, rape, murder, lying, and bigotry seem acceptable acts for Muslims.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    Do you suppose that the Muslims in Cotour’s linked videos would fall under your definition of side 1, “those that are happy to see conflict and hatred towards other people“, or side 2, “those that would rather people be left in peace to raise their families“?

    I am pretty sure that the people who were adversely affected by the Muslim’s demands should fall under side 2.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour: only if they abandon that fundamental part of their religion that rejects an individuals freedom (including women) and the more violent and perverse aspects of their patriarchal “religion”.

    What’s freedom is it, the insanity of “working fifty hours a week in some office for fifty years at the end of which they tell you to piss off; ending up in some retirement village hoping to die before suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet on time?”
    Garland Greene in Con Air.

    Islam isn’t communism, people get to live in market economies, trade and do many of the things we call freedom.

    In this world there are only two countries where Women do not have the same voting rights as men, one is Saudi Arabia (though they’ve changed that for municipal elections) the other is The Vatican City.

    I don’t think veils or Burkas are compulsory for women in any country outside of Saudi Arabia, ditto Saudi Arabia is the only Muslim country that bans women from driving

    North African Muslim men (Egypt, Libya, Morocco) can be real pigs in their mauling of women, but that doesn’t apply to Muslim men throughout other Muslim countries (Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqi’s etc also think the North Africans are pigs).

    The “freedom” of living according to Muslim law wouldn’t be for you or I, but if it suits them and their beliefs it should be their choice, or if it doesn’t, it’s for them to change. The link below lists 100 Islamic freedoms.

    http://www.imamshirazi.com/freedom.html

    Simply, you must compare Islam and the Koran against the Constitution.

    One of my favorite quotes (I’ll use it at any excuse) is:

    It is the dead who govern. Look how they work their will upon us! Who have made the laws? The dead! Who have made the customs that we obey and that form and shape our lives? The dead! All the writers, when they would give weight and authority to their opinions, quote the dead. Our lives follow grooves that the dead have rub out with their thumbnails.

    M. Davisson Post (1869 – 1930)

    Americans have been very fortunate in their Founding Fathers, many other countries that have chosen to live by the governance of the dead have had problems because people like Lenin, Marx and Mao got it wrong. Where countries and religions have been stuck with forms of governance or beliefs that either never worked, or failed to work as times have changed, have either ditched (Russia) or modified beyond recognition (China) those governing policies. If Islam is too rigid to evolve to the needs of its younger generations it will have to also have to go through a transformation or it’ll find itself in a generational conflict.

    Who should be the people to decide Islams future? As a classical liberal to me it’s obvious that it’s up to them and only them.

  • Cotour

    Like all Liberals you tend to become an apologist for the opinions and feelings of those who would destroy. You may see yourself as having the “best” intentions, but what you are in the process of apologizing for goes way, way deeper than you want to or are capable to believe and understand.

    When you site “the dead” you fail to recognize that the American “dead” that we are speaking of are worlds away from the “dead” of previous generations. The Constitution, as was the Magna Cater, are paradigm changing documents never before seen on the planet related to individual freedom and counter balancing the abuse of power by government.

    You are treating the Constitution in your fundamental failure to recognize its significance as just another piece of paper that some dead white guys wrote upon. You might consider giving up your tradition of quoting M. Davisson, he did not get it, just as you do not get it.

    Which does not mean that given enough thought and real world observation that you can not change that. Your thought process and conclusion about such things is incorrect and dangerous to us all.

    As a prime example please consider that this entire conversation and exchange of ideas and counter ideas can be traced directly back to the Constitution and no other functioning document. Think about that. Under no other configuration either in the Western or Eastern world would we be able to have this conversation because it would be considered subversive and dangerous.

    Certainly Islam, if allowed to function as it was designed would never, ever allow such a discussion ever. Western thought / The American Constitution insists based on codified law that we all be allowed to have this conversation. And there is another example, maybe the primary example, of thee fundamental difference between the two and why they are irreconcilable.

  • wayne

    Cotour– good stuff.

    Ian Morison on Fritz Zwicky
    https://youtu.be/TV0c1EFIKy4?t=73

  • Cotour

    Wayne, Thank you, but what is the context of the lecture and the subject at hand?

    Am I missing some subtle point about balance ?

    (I enjoyed the clip)

  • wayne

    Cotour–
    no, no subtle nuance… just Fritz Zwicky’s favorite insult.

    (Zwicky btw, is attributed with discovering that Galaxies rotate as-if there is “extra” matter for which we can’t account, the “dark matter.”)

    totally off-thread– you might like some of the Gresham College Public Lectures. (“since 1597”) 1,900 are available, all free, no registration. Just right-click “save-as” to download anything you find interesting. Not overly techie at all but not dumbed down. (Art to Science and everything in between.)

    http://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch/

    “Gresham College was founded in 1597 and has been providing free lectures within the City of London for over 400 years. The College was established out of the Will of Sir Thomas Gresham, one of the most influential and important men across the Tudor and Elizabethan periods. Sir Thomas made himself indispensable as the financial agent for four successive monarchs from Henry VIII to Elizabeth I. As well as founding the Royal Exchange, Sir Thomas left proceeds in his Will for the foundation of the College in his name.”

  • Cotour

    You really amaze me, you are a video clip savant, TV, movies, science, politics. Amazing.

    Very unique.

  • wayne

    Cotour–
    HAR!
    I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, but never a savant! (But, thank you! I’ll take it.)
    (You are pretty quick with the esoteric links, yourself!)

    -I consume huge amounts of this type-of-material, “public” & academically-oriented, and high-quality (non “agenda” driven) stuff is hard to find, (any subject) and when I find it, I latch on to it. And I’m very picky about it all. (I prefer the long-form material, but sometimes a brief clip is all one needs to make a point.)

    Brief tangent– I’m totally convinced, one of the problems we have in America these days– “lack of shared Cultural experiences that bind us together.”
    “Everyone” thinks “history” began the day they were born. When in fact, we stand on the shoulders of giants, who handed this wonderful Country to us all, on a silver platter, and we are wasting it all.

    Planet of the Apes (1968) – Lady Liberty Destroyed
    https://youtu.be/XvuM3DjvYf0

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour, it’s Magna Carta, not Magna Cater.

    I thought your entire 7:46am comment was shallow waffle, you are clearly a conservative.

    Again I reference F. A. Hayek
    Why I am Not a Conservative:

    http://press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2011/hayek_constitution.html

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “Islam isn’t communism, people get to live in market economies, trade and do many of the things we call freedom.

    Many, but not even close to all. And heaven forbid that you are not one of the favored by Allah. In fact, how much of the Bill of Rights or even the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights are followed by Sharia? Yes, I want an exhaustive list.

    You wrote: “It is the dead who govern.

    Once again, not a statement that a conservative, classical liberal, or a Libertarian would make. In fact, in the US, it is hardly even true. Just look at how fundamentally transformed from the dead’s America that America has become under the liberal Democrats who have governed us the past quarter of a century. I don’t know where you, Andrew_W , grew up, but the current United States is not the country that I grew up in. Where I grew up, the government did not tyrannically direct me as to how I must spend my own money. This is a new — and wrongful — function of government, made up not by the dead but by the living who govern us now. What other tyranny in all of history has had the audacity to direct its citizens as to how to spend their own money? (Not rhetorical; if anyone knows, please tell me.)

    No. It is not the dead who govern this country; it is the living. But if the tyranny keeps up like this, the living will envy the dead (I think I got that from the “two idiots overnight”).

    You wrote: “many other countries that have chosen to live by the governance of the dead have had problems because people like Lenin, Marx and Mao got it wrong.

    Just as Islam’s tyranny is getting it wrong from its own dead. Case in point: all the terrorism committed in Islam’s name. Clearly, the bad book teaches Muslims that terrorism is acceptable, just look at the polls that show that hundreds of millions of Muslims believe so.

    How many Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Confucianists, or Taoists believe that terrorism is acceptable? (Rhetorical, but if you happen to know the answer, I would be interested.)

    You wrote: “Again I reference F. A. Hayek Why I am Not a Conservative:

    Why do you think that Hayek had to be a conservative? Is it because he advocated for free markets? Even the Chinese and Indians are turning to free markets, as they learned that central control stifles economies, not grows them, and this is why a billion people, between the two countries, are now wealthy. For many decades, it was mostly the people of Europe, North America, and Australia who made up the majority of the wealthy billion in the world. When China and India figured it out, they turned to free markets, and now they are prospering as well, making up the second billion of the, now, two billion wealthy people in the world. It seems funny how the free markets in Muslim controlled countries have not been able to do what even the Communist Chinese have managed to do with free markets. Maybe Islam is not the free system that you, Andrew_W, believe it to be.

    Hayek did not have to be a conservative in order to advocate for his style of economics.

  • Cotour

    Andrew W:

    Magna Carta, Magna Cater, its just a typo, no biggie.

    In addition, my comment of 7:46 is a concise, comprehensive and creative explanation of the subject at hand. You do not understand the relevance of the Constitution and are creating an equivalency where none exists.

    Your classification of me as a Conservative is not the insult that you may be intending it to be. I am a reasonable Conservative who understands the Constitution and its significance, and I certainly understand the fundamental differences between it and Islam / the Koran. They are irreconcilable as is represented by the Liberal / Leftists among us. Without the fundamental reformation that I have described on the part of Islam this condition will prevail….always. Remember, the Constitution which welcomes Muslims is in the end not a suicide pact.

    I stand confidently with my interpretation.

  • wayne

    The Empowered Man — Jon McNaughton
    https://youtu.be/SUfh-2n5cWI

  • Andrew_W

    Edward: Many, but not even close to all.

    Correct, as I said “The “freedom” of living according to Muslim law wouldn’t be for you or I”.

    So the rest of that point you’re trying t make is a straw man.

    not a statement that a conservative, classical liberal, or a Libertarian would make.

    No, not a statement that a conservative would make, or even likely recognize the significance of, Why is America so different to Europe, which is so different to China, which is so different to Africa, which is so different to Japan, which is so different to the Muslim world? The Dead! The framework and structure and history of all those places are unique to them, a product of the actions of past generations.

    Just as Islam’s tyranny is getting it wrong from its own dead.

    Here suddenly to seem to get the point I was making, Edward gets my points, but only when it suits him, I don’t think Edward debates issues to understand other view points, he debates exclusively to find rationalizations to reinforce his existing beliefs. That’s exactly what Hayek thinks conservatives do.

    How many Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Confucianists, or Taoists believe that terrorism is acceptable? (Rhetorical, but if you happen to know the answer, I would be interested.)

    If the question is put as it should be: “How many people think that killing people to achieve a vague political ends is OK”. My answer would be probably around 10%.

    Why do you think that Hayek had to be a conservative?

    What makes you think I think Hayek is a Conservative? Isn’t it obvious I know he’s more or less a Classical Liberal? I find his description and insights into Conservatism enlightening, they explain so well the problems I have discussing politics and economics with Conservatives, the rigid intransigence, their inability to absorb basic arguments and to follow logic that to me is self evident. Conservatives appear totally incapable of grasping concepts that are outside the box, the framework of understanding they live with.

    Hayek:
    Unlike liberalism with its fundamental belief in the long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited at a given time. And since it does not really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality.

    Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it—or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism.

    After the discussion on this blog reading that for me has been epiphanic.

  • Andrew_W

    Wayne, I can see why you like that sort of thing, consider this though, the Founding Fathers were not Conservatives, they understood that change was necessary, they thought for themselves and were brilliant people. They were not fans of the Conservatism of their time, and I doubt they would have been fans of the Conservatism of today. They recognized the need to change with the times, they understood the long-range power of ideas.

  • wayne

    Edward/Cotour–

    It’s pointless & futile. Andrew_W is just trying to bait & incite anyone who will play ball with him.
    What he really wants to do, is call us all deplorable nazi Neanderthals who inhabit fly-over country.
    He wants to incite a tirade against himself and then use that as justification for his initial premises. By his own admission, he’s here to “shake things up.”

  • wayne

    Tedious, obtuse, & futile.

  • Andrew_W

    Wayne, you get my point, but you’re not able to reply to it, it challenges your core beliefs.

    Bye.

  • To everyone reading this blog: I wish to point out the close-minded approach that Andrew_W uses. He searches and finds a quote, from decades ago, that defines the word “conservative” in a manner that was once the standard and single definition of the word, and which happens to fit his particular understanding of that word. Thus, this is now the definition of “conservative,” someone who worships authority and the old ways of doing things and fights all change. No other definition need apply.

    Unfortunately, this definition has not been an accurate definition for the modern conservative movement in the United States for almost a half century. Anyone with any knowledge at all about the modern political situation in the United States knows this. (See this link for example.) Modern conservatives wants change badly, but change that will return the United States back to the free, bottom-up society where government had little power over anyone’s lives, and where the rule of law was paramount. They want change that will return America back to the classical liberal philosophy of the Founding Fathers, something that modern liberal thought abhors. (The very fact that we need to use the term “classical liberal” instead of simply “liberal” shows that there is a fundamental difference between them.)

    A simple web search will find ample examples of people defining conservative exactly in this manner, from all sides of the political spectrum. Hayek’s definition is still valid in certain situations, but to insist that it is the only definition is to be narrow-minded and downright foolish.

    But this is Andrew_W’s approach to all debate. He finds the facts that fit his beliefs and theories, and that ends the discussion. Everyone who disagrees doesn’t know the facts (his facts), and is therefore wrong.

    Debating someone who thinks like this is like screaming as loud as you can to a wall. No matter how loud or thoughtful or intelligent or fact-based you might be, the wall still doesn’t hear you.

    I note this not for Andrew_W, whom I’ve concluded will never hear anything he does not like, but for the rest of my readers.

  • Andrew_W

    The Founding Fathers were of the progressive right, today in America and other Western countries the Conservatives are dominant on the right, it’s a reaction to the progressive left, the result is that there are few of us of the progressive right.

  • Cotour

    Timing is everything in life, someone sent this to me and its really something that Andrew W should experience to gain the proper perspective on this subject. I do not know from where it comes or if it is an actual Canadian document. Enjoy Andrew.

    A Canadian female liberal wrote a lot of letters to the Canadian government, complaining about the treatment of captive insurgents (terrorists) being held in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities. She demanded a response to her letter. She received back the following reply:

    National Defense Headquarters
    M Gen George R. Pearkes Bldg., 15 NT
    101 Colonel By Drive
    Ottawa, ON K1A 0K2
    Canada

    Dear Concerned Citizen

    Thank you for your recent letter expressing your profound concern of treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists captured by Canadian Forces, who were subsequently transferred to the Afghanistan Government and are currently being held by Afghan officials in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities.

    Our administration takes these matters seriously and your opinions were heard loud and clear here in Ottawa. You will be pleased to learn, thanks to the concerns of citizens like yourself, we are creating a new department here at the Department of National Defense, to be called ‘Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers’ program, or L.A.R.K. for short.

    In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided, on a trial basis, to divert several terrorists and place them in homes of concerned citizens such as yourself, around the country, under those citizens personal care.

    Your personal detainee has been selected and is scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence in Toronto next Monday.

    article-0-1E5D274E00000578-970_634x821.jpg

    Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud is your detainee, and is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint. You will be pleased to know that we will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with your recommendations.

    Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his ‘attitudinal problem’ will help him overcome those character flaws. Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. We understand that you plan to offer counselling and home schooling, however, we strongly recommend that you hire some assistant caretakers.

    Please advise any Jewish friends, neighbors or relatives about your house guest, as he might get agitated or even violent, but we are sure you can reason with him. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless in your opinion, this might offend him.

    Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills either in your home or wherever you choose to take him while helping him adjust to life in our country.

    Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters except sexually, since he views females as a form of property, thereby having no rights, including refusal of his sexual demands. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him.

    You also should know that he has shown violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the dress code that he will recommend as more appropriate attire. I’m sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the burka over time. Just remember that it is all part of ‘respecting his culture and religious beliefs’, as described in your letter.

    You take good care of Ahmed and remember that we will try to have a counselor available to help you over any difficulties you encounter while Ahmed is adjusting to Canadian culture.

    Thanks again for your concern. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job and care for our fellow man. Good luck and God bless you.

    Cordially

    Gordon O’Connor
    Minister of National Defense

  • Wayne

    Andrew_W wrote–

    — “The Founding Fathers were of the progressive right…”

    The Cat, (as they say), is out of the bag.

  • Cotour

    The Founders were tired of living under the thumb of a tyrant. I do not know if I would call that “progressive”.

    You can call that progressive if you like because they were thinking outside of the traditional governance box of the day, but “progressive” (Leftist / Liberal) of today has nothing to do with this stretch of the word “progressive” as Andrew W would like to apply it to then.

    The Founders came at the problem from exactly the other end of the problem. In Andrew W’s example the Founders would have found a way to “get along” with the tyrant King, because, like Rodney King (a different kind of King, but a King none the less) once said, “Can’t we all get along?” , its all about understanding.

    The founders were historians and lived their real lives at the interface between their freedom and the real Kings real tyranny, and were not worried about whether they should freely include a belief system into their newly formed experiment in governance that would destroy it. That is as absurd as it sounds.

    This conversation has basically attempted to make that distinction and apparently has a ways to go.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    I am going to have to side with wayne on the “thoughtful intelligent person” comment. You keep changing the discussion whenever you run out of argument and continue to argue false facts after you are proved wrong. You are inconsistent with your arguments, causing all kinds of confusion, which you then capitalize upon (do you do this on purpose?). You call valid arguments “straw man” arguments so that you can avoid response (or do you not know what a straw man argument is?).

    I agree with Robert about your close-minded approach, and I conclude that your disagreeable debate technique, tendency to make up your own facts, and lack of ability to understand reality — or even anyone else’s point of view — are not worth the time and effort.

    Frankly, it seems to me that all you understand is the mockery that you have a tendency to use, but I do not feel like mocking you in order for you to understand what you are reading, at least not right now.

    But please continue to suggest Evening Pauses. “Sleeping Satellite,” from a couple of weeks ago, is nice.

  • Cotour

    A dose of real reality, Andrew W please consider this and comment.

    https://youtu.be/PybcNf-s_Y8

    Unreconcilable.

  • Cotour

    And besides, Muslims would never think this was a good thing.

    https://youtu.be/3MVGBG6nmUA

    Anyone who hates dogs has something wrong with them.

  • Andrew_W

    Edward, you say I am not consistent with my arguments.

    1. Human behaviour is rooted deep in our instincts.

    2. Those instincts make us more rationalizing than rational, in a tough battle for survival that’s an asset for survival, if resources are limited it’s counter to survival to look at “rights” and “morality” so we instinctively don’t apply those concepts to “them” people outside the tribe we psychologically identify with.

    3.Cultural and religious aspects of our behavior are subservient to our instinctual behavior.

    4. Political/ideological beliefs are not on a one dimensional line, after the discussion here I think even the two dimensional ideological compass is inadequate, I’ll argue 3 dimensions
    a. Economic left – right
    b. Authoritarian – Libertarian
    c. Progressive – Conservative.

    I’m Economic right, Libertarian, Progressive. Right wing Conservatives, according to Bob’s link, oppose social progressive policies like same sex marriage and prefer punishment over rehabilitation for criminals, those I consider to be authoritarian policies rather than libertarian.

    5. Because of my position on 3. above and the self evident diversity amongst Muslims I think that any policies targeting all Muslims is a form of bigotry, ditto for targeting other religious or cultural groups.

    If there’s some points I’ve argued that you think are inconsistent with 1 – 6 speak now of retract the claim of inconsistency.

    ———–

    Something not covered is why do we have this centuries long drift towards more government? As time goes by a higher and higher proportion of GDP is made up of Government spending.

    My answer is that as people become wealthier (a result of technological progress) they are more able to support large government, so resistance to the growth of government steadily declines, technology is also largely the reason for social “progress” for example; babies born outside of marriage used to be a huge financial problem, so society was hostile to social practices likely to produce them.

    This is why religion in poorer societies is more stick on practices likely to produce those kids, and why Western society in far more tolerant in many respects than it used to be.

    So, I think that if one of todays societies was returned to a poorer state it would soon shed the luxury of “progressive” moral policies.

  • Andrew_W

    Bob: Unfortunately, this definition has not been an accurate definition for the modern conservative movement in the United States for almost a half century.

    I think Conservatives throughout time probably believe that, while Conservatives used to be “someone who worships authority and the old ways of doing things and fights all change”, each generation of Conservatives thinks “it’s all different now”. Hayek’s belief is that Conservatives do change over time, it’s just that they’re always changing, long after the Progressives and about half of the population has moved on to ever more “progressive” social policies. Soon Conservatives will be OK with same sex marriage, just as they’re now more tolerant of couples cohabiting without being married and then they became more tolerant of Homosexuality.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “Human behaviour is rooted deep in our instincts.

    Is this supposed to excuse your close-minded approach and disagreeable debate technique? (And should I point out that you misspelled behavior, as you did to Cotour on the Magna Carta? Somehow I thought you were the one who thought it nice that we all tried to understand each other, but I can’t find that comment, so I must have been wrong.)

    You wrote: “Muslims I think that any policies targeting all Muslims is a form of bigotry

    So if I don’t like the book and what it teaches and think that the people who practice what it preaches are wrong, then I am practicing a form of bigotry. Yet here you are, defending people — as though they are the victims not the bigots — who actually practice policies that target all infidels, as Cotour’s video demonstrates.

    From Cotour’s video: The Muslim says, “It’s not my version of Islam. It’s Islamic law. If you go around preaching that Mohamed is a false profit in a Muslim country, you get killed.

    Is the bigot the one who insists upon killing, or is he the one who believes in freedom of speech? So, how much self-evident diversity is there amongst Muslims when there is only one version of Islam?

    You wrote: “Something not covered…

    … is not covered because it is a different topic. As I said, “You keep changing the discussion whenever you run out of argument.”

    You wrote: “My answer is that …

    You built up a straw man in order to knock it down. This is what a straw man argument is.

    I think Conservatives throughout time probably believe that…

    And so you do think that. Well, I believe that if can you couch your statements with enough conditionals then you can always be right. Just as my statement is right, as I truly do believe this, your statement is right, as you truly think that. Of course, your thinking can be wrong, but that does not matter to you, just so long as you can finally make a statement that cannot be disproved — because you, too, truly do think what you said you think.

    (*Sigh* I can’t believe I wasted more time on this discussion with you. What was I thinking?)

  • Edward

    Who are the bigots, the terrorists who kill in the name of Allah because the victims do not practice Islam, or the people who think the terrorists are the bad guys?

    Who are the bigots, the Muslims who do not tolerate any behavior that is counter to Sharia or the people at the pool who want to legally and morally swim in their bikinis?

    But no, Andrew_W thinks it is the conservatives who are the bigots, because he thinks that it was conservatives who didn’t tolerate couples cohabiting without being married or didn’t tolerate homosexuality. Once again, he is confused about what conservativism is, thinking that religion and conservativism are one and the same.

    In fact, who is the bigot, the conservative or the one who is so intolerant of the conservative?

    (*Sigh* I can’t believe I wasted even more time on this discussion.)

  • Wayne

    Cotour– yeah, right with you on the dog-hater thought. I tend to a Cat myself, but I get your point 100%.
    [“He’s Mark Levin… Defender of Dogs!” –Saw Levin at a Bark-in-the-Park with my g-daughter a few years ago, she lives in Virginia.]

    Edward– you know I’m in your corner on quite a bit, including huge chunks of this thread.

    Andrew-W–
    If you are a self proclaimed “progressive,” it’s impossible for you to be Libertarian or a free-market capitalist, or any sort of believer in democratic principles. You use that word- progressive– a lot now, but me thinks you don’t know what it means. And I can’t tell if you are just being disingenuous or disagreeable, or just to “shake thing up.,” or if you’re a fellow-traveler or a simple useful-idiot.

    We have this “centuries long drift toward big government,” because Masterminds want to control the people. There’s more stuff to STEAL from other people. The Nature of Mankind hasn’t changed, only our technology, and a big idea called the United States of America.

    You define your own terms & deny reality. And what’s more, you tell me and others who believe as I do, that we don’t know what our belief’s actually are, and then you impute devious motives to us.

    Progressives are Fabian socialists, they love totalitarian Marxism & had a serious fling with it’s twin sister Fascism, in the 1930’s. They abhor the family unit, Capitalism, representative democracy and think they can perfect mankind under their tutelage.

    I asked you specifically what Psychological School of Thought you endorsed, but you declined to tell me, until now. And now I seriously doubt you have a firm grasp on any of the Schools of Thought, their differences, or the implications thereof.
    “Saying stuff, doesn’t make it true.”
    If you precede from an incorrect premise, its all just a house of cards.

    Honestly– this is all tedious & pointless. Repetitious circular reasoning with your own internally defined nouns and verbs. Constantly moving targets, just to challenge my core beliefs.
    Just state your comments and OWN THEM 100%.
    In America, at least, your are entitled to your own opinion’s, but you are not entitled to your own definition of reality or your own “facts.”

    I’m sick of this to be honest. Just another “climate” thread in my eyes. I’ve pretty much figured you out, to my satisfaction.
    –{“Wayne, you get my point, but you’re not able to reply to it…”}
    I have no clue what your real point is, and you have zero clue what I am “able to do.”

    What exactly, do you WANT me to say? What is it I MUST say?
    (What kind of rush you get out all this?)

    As I mentioned– pretty sick of all this. I will continue to your read your stuff, but its a waste of my time to engage you. A total waste of my time.

  • Wayne

    Edward–
    –posts are crossing in the ether–
    > Ditto–I can’t believe I’ve wasted even more of my time, as well!

  • Andrew_W

    “And should I point out that you misspelled behavior, as you did to Cotour on the Magna Carta?”

    I try to use US spelling here, sometimes I use the correct spelling.

    Yet here you are, defending people — as though they are the victims not the bigots — who actually practice policies that target all infidels,

    I haven’t defended anyone targeting infidels, I only explain cause, not excuse action.

    Is the bigot the one who insists upon killing, or is he the one who believes in freedom of speech?

    I just heard lots of shouting from Cotour’s videos. Was either person collectivizing and targeting a whole group, most of whom had nothing to do with the dispute? If not, where’s the bigotry?

    … is not covered because it is a different topic.

    Which is why I did this:

    ——-

    See different topic. I mentioned it because it’s relevant to the different strictness to the adherence to traditional moral practices between the generally wealthier Christian West and poorer Islamic East, Muslims living in Western countries on higher incomes tend to be less strict with regard to enforcing traditional moral codes, a lot of that would be just adapting to the customs of the society they live in, but in part I attribute it simply to wealth.

    You built up a straw man in order to knock it down.

    Nonsense, I wasn’t claiming my opponents were arguing a point that they were not so that I could knock it down, I was addressing my own rhetorical question.

    And so you do think that.

    No, you need to reread what I actually said, “Conservatives do change over time, it’s just that they’re always changing, long after the Progressives and about half of the population has moved on to ever more “progressive” social policies. ”

    Bob claims that the definition “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.., ” no longer applies to todays Conservatives, but I think it does, because existing conditions, institutions, etc., have also changed – but at the behest of Progressives, not Conservatives.

  • Andrew_W

    Edward Who are the bigots, the terrorists who kill in the name of Allah because the victims do not practice Islam, or the people who think the terrorists are the bad guys?

    The terrorists who kill in the name of Allah, and the infidels who blame all Muslims for the actions of a relative few.

    Who are the bigots, the Muslims who do not tolerate any behavior that is counter to Sharia or the people at the pool who want to legally and morally swim in their bikinis?

    The Muslims who do not tolerate any behavior that is counter to Sharia.

    Andrew_W thinks it is the conservatives who are the bigots, because he thinks that it was conservatives who didn’t tolerate couples cohabiting without being married or didn’t tolerate homosexuality.

    People who believe that couples who cohabit without being married, and homosexuals, should answer to laws and punishment for living that way are bigots.

    Once again, he is confused about what conservativism is, thinking that religion and conservativism are one and the same. In Bob’s link Conservative policy is described as being opposed to same sex marriage, yesteryear conservatives opposed the other things mentioned.

    In fact, who is the bigot, the conservative or the one who is so intolerant of the conservative?

    Where have I suggested that there should be policies targeting Conservatives? Never! Another of Edwards straw men.

  • Andrew_W

    Wayne: If you are a self proclaimed “progressive,” it’s impossible for you to be Libertarian or a free-market capitalist, or any sort of believer in democratic principles. You use that word- progressive– a lot now, but me thinks you don’t know what it means.

    Did you read the 3 dimensions bit, Progressive means in favor of progress, the other axis: a. Economic left – right
    b. Authoritarian – Libertarian. Cover progress in which direction, I know in America “progressive” has the meaning of towards bigger government, some of us don’t think that’s necessarily progress, at least certainly not the kind we want to see.

    We have this “centuries long drift toward big government,” because Masterminds want to control the people. There’s more stuff to STEAL from other people.

    If you mean through bigger Government, I agree, but the voter doesn’t vote for more government stealing, he votes for more money to be spent on “essential” services for the “disenfranchised”, and he is more willing to allow that to happen because doing that might mean less luxuries for him, but doesn’t mean him having to go without essentials – as it would have for previous poorer generations.

    what Psychological School of you endorsed

    Sociobiology and Evolutionary psychology.

  • wayne

    Andrew_W–
    I’ll engage you one last time, but I am wasting my time.

    Yes I read your comment.
    “Progressivism” is Fabian Socialism. You apparently have bought into the narrative it involves “progress.” The only ‘progress’ Progressives want, is to progress into socialism and destroy our Constitution. An inherently totalitarian ideology, foreign to America and imported from Europe.
    (They were trying to “perfect democracy,” in their words, during the Progressive era in the USA, roughly 1890-1920 and stuck us with the 17th Amendment and Prohibition.)
    Then we had the New Deal with FDR and the Great Society with LBJ, and the New Left, each time lurching us more and more toward collectivism and Statism.
    (If you are a Libertarian, you would hate Statism.)

    I’ve been a Movement Conservative since 1976. I’m well versed in all the “isms”and your lecturing-esque presentation doesn’t help your case.

    There doesn’t appear to be a place in your spectrum for Totalitarianism or Radical Egalitarianism— both of which the socialist/communists love more than anything, except raw brutal power.

    People vote all the time to increase “Government” and utilize that power to forcibly extract wealth from those who produce it & give it to those who don’t.
    The last 8 years is a perfect example– we have something like 40% of our population who are nothing but takers, who don’t pay taxes, and who receive some sort of entitlement (welfare) be it free cell-phones, health-insurance, or “food stamps.” Nobody will be left to pull the wagon, ‘cuz they all want to ride for free.

    Evolutionary Psychology— I’m a Behaviorist myself, although Skinner & the Gang had decidedly authoritarian/totalitarian streaks (See “Walden 2”)
    I’m in the clinical end of the realm, although now what I primarily do is sign-of on billable-services and make sure all the reports have the required government “stuff” in them, I never had the luxury of endless hypothetical speculation with untestable constructs and a lot of mentalism, I had to produce real results, in real life people, in the here and now, and I it had to be with the full-consent of the people, except in rare cases when the Judicial System was involved.

    “Evolution” acts on Populations, not individual’s members of a species. Populations don’t develop adaptable traits in response to the environment, the environment selects out functional traits and destroys everything else.
    Mentalistic Constructs inevitably lead to circular rationalization and faux “scientific explanations,” which are largely untestable. And the more Jargon one employs, the more “scientific” it sounds..

    (I have come to believe in Free Will, contrary to my Behavioral training which has failed to fully incorporate concepts of Quantum Mechanics, quantum states and de-coherence at the cellular level into their realm. That being said, incredibly huge amounts of behavior are strictly Newtonian and Deterministic and have little to do with Free Will. That being said as well– we can’t run a large society by perpetually excusing people for their actions, for the reason– “I’m a Victim of Circumstance, it’s in my DNA, etc.”
    –The Bigotry of low-expectations, robs people of their dignity, self-worth, and realization that they can contribute to society.
    (We already account for people who “can’t help it,” and treat them accordingly.)
    (also–See Dr. Roger Penrose, for some thoughts on the “quantum nature of biology and behavior.”)

    Our Constitution lays out what exactly the role of the Government is to be in our Society, and it has been completely breached.
    The individual and Sovereign States of our Union, created our Federal Government, and the Federal Government is supposed to work on behalf of the citizens & States in very limited and specified roles. Not dictate to the States or the Citizens.
    Our rights do not come from our Government, we have them inherently. The Government is supposed to enforce those rights, not create new ones nor create protected classes of citizens and pit them against each other.
    We don’t want more social-programs, we want the ones we have scaled drastically back and/or eliminated wholesale.
    We believe in Federalism. If any particular State wants abortion, or “medical” weed, or provide for same-sex civil unions, the people of that State will make the choice. But our own Government and huge numbers of people, don’t even follow Federalism and have systematically stripped away that distinction, primarily with the collusion of the Courts, which are all the exclusive creation on Congress and subservient to Congress. (The fact that 9 Judges on the Supreme Court, can now impose their will through judicial fiat, speaks volumes as to how far we have strayed from our Founding, and that’s not progress, it is however, “progressivism.”

    The “…provide for the General Welfare..” phrase does not mean “provide European socialism and a welfare State to the “47%.” It never has, but it’s been imposed upon us.

    Personally, I don’t care who-has-sex-with-whom, but huge amounts of Citizens in our Country follow Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, and those must be respected, because they compose huge amounts of the fabric of our society and history. Christians don’t “hate” gay people, I would venture to guess, what they dislike the most, is the in-your-face demands that those choices be celebrated at their expense, and by force.
    The whole “gay marriage thing,” is primarily one of non- Federalism and attempts to redefine what “marriage” actually is.
    There are also very functional reasons for people to restrain their base-instincts as much as possible, within a Civil Society. Historically that has meant “be discrete,” at the very minimum, and people do not like being forced to endorse the “cause of the week.”

    Special interest groups of all flavors, now wield power far and beyond there actual population numbers, and ‘the rest of us” are concerned over the inevitable end results of such power.

    I am sick of this, and I probably wasted my time.

    I am outa here.

  • Andrew_W

    “progressive”

    You’re playing semantic, stop trying to impose your definition of “progressive” on to the definition of the word that I’m using: “favoring change or innovation”.

    There doesn’t appear to be a place in your spectrum for Totalitarianism or Radical Egalitarianism

    “Spectrum” usually means a continuum in one dimension, I’m talking about a 3D matrix for defining peoples political position.

    X – The economic dimension. Right for more free economic policies, left for less free economic policies.

    Y – The Authoritarian to Libertarian dimension. Represents social and political freedom. At one extreme Totalitarianism, at the other extreme Anarchism (without Government).

    Z – The willingness/enthusiasm for change dimension, Progressive “favoring change or innovation” at one end and traditionalist/Conservative “preferring no or little change” at the other end.

    Combine all three dimensions and you can represent a persons political position in 3D, one more that the Political Compass, which is 2D, the political compass doesn’t take into account a persons willingness to see change.

    Now do you see where Totalitarianism fits in?

    The points in the balance of your comment I either agree with, see as normal Conservative policy, or are outside the areas I’m interested in.

  • Wayne

    Andrew_W

    “almost, a complete waste of my time. But I will give you credit for stepping up to the plate again.”

    Which Internet “Libertarian Test,” are you referencing?

    1) http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi
    or
    2) https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

    (I’d be lying if I said I actually care what your “score” is, but I’ll play another partial inning.)

    I operate under a paradigm where in the political “spectrum” is a circle.
    (There’s a difference between totalitarianism & authoritarianism, all variants.) Authoritarian regimes are capable of morphing into representative-democracy, Totalitarianism however, must be destroyed.

    All variants of socialism/communism are inherently Totalitarian & radically egalitarian. Completely foreign ideologies, imported to America.

    “Progressives” want to slowly morph the United into socialism, in contrast to international-socialism (soviets) or nationalistic (agrarian, populist) socialism, which seeks to destroy the Civil society and bring about “the end of History.”

    I want none of it, under any guise or Master Plan, or creative wordsmithing.
    –I’m not the one redefining words, wholesale. You believe in what I call “whacky climate stuff,” but I’m the one who is “imposing” my definitions upon you?

    (“you have to dance with the one you brung, not the one you meet.”)

    –I’m well versed in Anarcho-Capitalism (see Murray Rothbard) while it has it’s definite appeal, we have a limited representative republic based upon Judeo-Christian tenets, operating within a civil-society. (Not worried about anarcho-capitalism, they can’t even organize properly) your ideologies I would maintain however, always involve the gun, barbed wire, and death camps, always and forever.

    Tone, is always difficult to judge in text. You do however, present in a lecturing condescending manner at times, with a smattering of autism-spectrum disorder.

    At the risk of continuing to watch this car-accident & not being able to look away…
    >What do you think of Obama?

    Edward– (hey) I for one appreciate your extensive effort in this thread and agree in large part with many of your points. (It is pointless, however to continue to engage.)

  • Cotour

    Now we understand why Andrew W can not understand the concepts of the Constitution as evidenced by these two posts:

    1. “I try to use US spelling here, sometimes I use the correct spelling.”

    2. “For the first video commenters are saying he’s accusing Muhammad Morsi of deep running corruption and of stealing millions of Egypt’s income, nothing to do with religion. Sadly, most aren’t interested in reality, only in sh!t that supports what they want to believe.”

    Andrew W speaks fluent Egyption.

    Andrew W’s interests are very, very subjective and is a proponent of the forced mixing of these two un-mixable cultures.

    When having these conversations I always ask myself “What is my counter parts motivation and why do they believe what they say believe? And, are they representing their own opinions OR are they an operative (paid or other wise) pushing a political agenda for some political organization or government agency (either foreign or domestic) designed to muddy the waters in the various media sites where opinions are shared?

    Andrew W, you are unable to understand the foundation concepts of this particular subject “Freedom” that we are involved in. You have been brain washed for your entire life with the political positions that you promote. I said earlier that you were intelligent and thoughtful, and what you have revealed here is that you are very well educated in the doctrine in which you have grown up in and are endeavoring to promote it. I assume that you are a son a a wealthy government official? (Probably schooled in England? Probably not in America because you do not understand the freedoms that you write about)

    True Americans that understand the Constitution reject every word that you write about how the world works and what true individual freedom is and what is the strongest way to counter balance the abuse of power that is present in all forms of governance, the Constitution.

  • Wayne

    Cotour– I want to say “New Zeeland,” but I can’t locate the remark which set me on that thought. (And I’m just do not know.)
    If it is New Zeeland– they are a nuclear-free zone, pulled out of their Defense Treaty with us and Australia, (HATED Reagan) and wouldn’t allow our Navy to dock in their ports, on the chance they contained nuclear-weapons.
    (That resulted in a 20+ year ban on New Zeeland military ships from docking in the USA.)
    I am however, unclear on which President “apologized” to them and made it “all better.”

  • Steve Earle

    Cotour wrote:
    “….Timing is everything in life, someone sent this to me and its really something that Andrew W should experience to gain the proper perspective on this subject. I do not know from where it comes or if it is an actual Canadian document. Enjoy Andrew.

    A Canadian female liberal wrote a lot of letters to the Canadian government, complaining about the treatment of captive insurgents (terrorists) being held in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities. She demanded a response to her letter. She received back the following reply:….”

    That’s great. I haven’t seen that and will be stealing it for future use. :-)

  • Andrew_W

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

    I come out bottom right, Conservatives center right.

    The idea of a third dimension, willingness for change, is something I’ve come up with just in the last couple of days for some reason, those resistant to change (any change) would be below the page those keen for change above the page.

    I’m adamant that trying to portray social and economic ideology in one dimension is nonsense.

    your ideologies I would maintain however, always involve the gun, barbed wire, and death camps, always and forever.

    You are correct, NZ, we have less guns, barb wire, and people in prisons/head of population here than you people.

    You do however, present in a lecturing condescending manner at times, with a smattering of autism-spectrum disorder.

    I mentioned earlier that I comment at Rand Simberg’s site (Transterrestrial Musings) Anthony and Wodun also do, most of the commenters there are more Libertarian than Conservative, and while I still disagree with commenters their on the obvious two issues, I don’t get, with respect, the stubborn closed mindedness I feel I get here. Between me and you guys there’s a real gulf in understanding concepts.

    What do you think of Obama?

    Obviously I know little on the impacts of his domestic policies, though I know he’s supported COTS – often in the face of supposedly right wing politicians, who are more porkers than supporters of open markets.

    Internationally Obama has supported freer trade something the right is supposed to support but in the US appears not to support. Obama has been less isolationist than a lot of US Conservatives, I support stronger global trade and cultural links, better people to people links serve the purpose of reducing the chances of conflict and promoting understanding that government to government links. Usually it is more the people lead, the government follows, government leading where the people don’t want to go get tossed out. I am opposed to the political welding together of countries as in the EU.

    I think Obama has done poorly in Iraq, that country needed a federal style of government to accommodate the diversity of the population, when Morsi started turning into a dictator (there were hundreds killed at one protest march), that was when that country was doomed, the Sunni were alienated, many blamed the US, ISIS got a lot of new recruits.

    True Americans that understand the Constitution reject every word that you write about how the world works and what true individual freedom is and what is the strongest way to counter balance the abuse of power that is present in all forms of governance, the Constitution.

    I’ve spent a lot of time chatting to Libertarian Americans, many do not “reject every word that I write about how the world works and what true individual freedom” that you can say that, that you can believe that you hold the key to the one great truth, that others are too stupid to see the truth marks you as a Conservative. You might claim I also think I hold the keys, but at least I seek out the opinions of others, I read across the spectrum, use a wide range of sources before I reach any tentative conclusions (I’m satisfied AGW is Likely to be happening, I’m skeptical on Catastrophic AGW)

  • Andrew_W

    I’ve just attributed to Wayne the “True Americans . . .” bit, I accidentally picked it up from Cotours comment, my apologies.

    Cotour: Andrew W, you are unable to understand the foundation concepts of this particular subject “Freedom” that we are involved in. You have been brain washed for your entire life with the political positions that you promote. I said earlier that you were intelligent and thoughtful, and what you have revealed here is that you are very well educated in the doctrine in which you have grown up in and are endeavoring to promote it. I assume that you are a son a a wealthy government official? (Probably schooled in England? Probably not in America because you do not understand the freedoms that you write about)

    As I said above, I’m a Kiwi, I’ve been self employed my whole life in small business, I hate the idea of being a wage slave, I like having flexible work hours. My father was a self employed pharmacist, a Conservative, but not overly political.

    You’re under the impression that Americans understand freedom and others do not:

    The Human Freedom Index (HFI) is the most comprehensive freedom index so far created for a globally meaningful set of countries. The HFI covers 152 countries for 2012, the most recent year for which sufficient data is available. The index ranks countries beginning in 2008, the earliest year for which a robust enough index could be produced. This preliminary report will be updated (using data for 2013) and subsequently presented and updated on a yearly basis.
    . . . .
    The top 10 jurisdictions in order were Hong Kong, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. The United States is ranked in 20th place.

    http://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index

    As you can see that’s via the CATO institute.

    Wayne: Cotour– I want to say “New Zeeland,” but I can’t locate the remark which set me on that thought. (And I’m just do not know.)
    If it is New Zeeland– they are a nuclear-free zone, pulled out of their Defense Treaty with us and Australia, (HATED Reagan) and wouldn’t allow our Navy to dock in their ports, on the chance they contained nuclear-weapons.
    (That resulted in a 20+ year ban on New Zeeland military ships from docking in the USA.)
    I am however, unclear on which President “apologized” to them and made it “all better.”

    It’s Zealand not Zeeland – and don’t tell me it was a typo, you did it 3 times :)

    We are nuclear free, but I’d be happy to see nuclear power here, I don’t hate Reagan, and neither does the rest of the country – he’s actually held in high regard. The rule was that the NZ Prime minister would have to OK visiting ship depending on whether or not he thought they were nuclear, the US government of the time suggested a ship that was likely nuclear armed an it was rejected by the PM, there was no ban on NZ ships visiting US ports (soon after the break-up a NZ frigate visited Honolulu and was greeted with a US Navy sponsored “protest” about our visiting fossil fuel powered ship :)

    There has been no “apology” (I assume you were being facetious), and (finally) a US warship visit is being arranged for sometime in the next few months.

  • Andrew_W

    I just noticed I picked up a dated freedom index, wiki’s got the newest one up. Congratulations, you’ve moved up from 20th to 11th place.

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

  • Cotour

    Its not hard to argue against insanity:

    https://youtu.be/hNvoImGJBnQ

    NEVER!

  • Andrew_W

    More on the Asia Bibi case here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Bibi_blasphemy_case

    Your response: Hate
    My response: Conservative Muslims (yep, that’s exactly what the are) need to change, and they will, Conservatives are just slowly dragged along by the rest of society as it changes.

    There are additional tragedies in that a couple of her high profile defenders have been murdered, at least one of the murderers has been executed.

  • Cotour

    So, what do you think it might take, 1000? 2500 years? More?

    Guess what, no reasonable civilized human being is will to wait for Islam to civilize itself. How about this, they stay where they are and evolve and then join the civilized world when thats all over with.

    That is how a reasonable and civilized person views this situation. And its big of you to point out that only some of her high profile defenders have been murdered (for allegedly saying something while getting a drink of water). I guess the rest of her defenders are grateful that they have not been murdered?

    I wish you could understand how ridiculous your justifications sound. And you see yourself as being “progressive” in your position. This is not “progressive”, “progressive” is a compliment (and I despise the word “progressive”, it offends me to my core), what you propose is insanity.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour: So, what do you think it might take, 1000? 2500 years? More?

    Change can be dramatic from one generation to the next, the young are always questioning the wisdom of their parents, with the near universality of TV most Muslims have a pretty good idea of what Westerners are like, take the feedback for Iranians in the links I posted a while back, Iranian’s like Americans, it’s US government policy that they were complaining about. With social media Muslims are getting the opportunity to interact with the rest of the world, it’s just a shame that along with the positive stuff they’re also seeing the hate mongering crap that you like to watch.

  • Cotour

    A little more real time reality for you.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/man-sliced-cleaver-boot-car-article-1.2794834

    Not civilized? Don’t like the freedom women have in America? Will not assimilate to the American Constitution? Hate dogs? Like to assault police officers? Go back to where you came from and “evolve”. (after you serve your prison sentence of course)

  • Andrew_W

    I’m not going to throw grenades pointing out the violence of criminals Christian vs Muslim, there’s plenty around and it’s never ending. The US is a largely Christian country with plenty of Christians committing crime.

  • Cotour

    Winston Churchill, 1889.

    “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

    The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensual-ism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

    Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

    No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

    Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).

  • Cotour

    That speech was written in 1899, not 1889.

    Churchill was quite the observer and communicator.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “I try to use US spelling here, sometimes I use the correct spelling.”

    And once again, you purposefully missed the point, which I took care to explain. Rather than pointing out misspellings, get past the occasional error. This is why I asked whether you think we should spend time pointing out misspellings rather than discuss the issues.

    You wrote: “I just heard lots of shouting from Cotour’s videos.”

    So now we know that content does not matter to you. Plus, only one of the videos had shouting. There was the inconsistent Muslim who only follows her religion when she wants to cause trouble. Kind of like your inconsistency, you say whatever you think will dredge up the most trouble.

    I would have said that at least you know who the bigots are, but you didn’t bother watching the videos. You still think it is the conservatives.

    You wrote: “Was either person collectivizing and targeting a whole group”

    As the quote I pulled out noted, the Muslim was explaining to the infidel that there is only one kind of Islam. He collectivized all Muslims as a group, and he targeted all infidels as a group. You pay no attention to what you read as well as to what you see and hear.

    You wrote: “The terrorists who kill in the name of Allah, and the infidels who blame all Muslims for the actions of a relative few.”

    Are we blaming all Muslims or are we blaming the bad book that defines and directs the religion and instructs Muslims as to how to act toward the infidels (and exactly how to live their own lives, greatly reducing their liberty). There is a difference between blaming the person and blaming the religion, but apparently that is a distinction that is far too subtle for you to understand. You know, like the difference between a book and a person.

    You wrote: “People who believe that couples who cohabit without being married, and homosexuals, should answer to laws and punishment for living that way are bigots.”

    So, are people who believe in law and order also bigots, because you were talking about people in a time when fornication and homosexuality were actually against the law. Or didn’t you know that? You say that you are a ’63 model, but your knowledge of the past half century is not consistent with someone of that model year. For instance, there was a big deal when POSSLQ became legal.

    You wrote: “Where have I suggested that there should be policies targeting Conservatives? Never! Another of Edwards straw men.”

    Actually, this is your straw man, because to be intolerant does not require insistence on policy, it just requires the lack of tolerance that you have demonstrated. You had to redefine “tolerance” in order to change the topic and refute what was not said, but you twist things around quite nicely, which is why it is so frustrating to discuss anything with you. You fail to pay attention, apparently on purpose, which allows you the freedom to be difficult and inconsistent, plus it allows you to claim that people said things that cannot even be derived or misinterpreted from what they said. Many tactics of your way of discussion are so bad that they do not even fall under the list of fallacies that I gave you.

    You wrote: “I was addressing my own rhetorical question.”

    That is what a straw man argument is.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
    “A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.”

    You wrote: “The US is a largely Christian country with plenty of Christians committing crime.”

    Now you redefine every crime as being the equal to terrorism. As though no Muslim ever committed a crime that wasn’t terrorism.

    As wayne said, I’ll engage you this last time. But I do so only to point out that I have you figured out, now, and you are terrible at this. For instance, you searched the web for a definition of “conservative,” because you have no idea what conservativism is; found one by Hayek, whom you assumed knew what he was talking about, because you also assumed that he was a conservative; used it as the definitive definition; later announced that Hayek wasn’t even a conservative, but you held to his definition anyway; and now you are so confounded that you can’t even get an argument straight.

    My conclusion is that in our attempts to teach you something about religion, politics, and discussion, you are getting worse, not better.

    I apologize if this comment further worsens your situation.

  • Andrew_W

    “there was a big deal when POSSLQ became legal.”

    You mean that in your country it was once illegal for people of different genders to share the same house if not married??

    We never had such draconian legislation here.

    That is what a straw man argument is.
    “A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.”

    I wasn’t giving the impression that I was trying to refute an argument that was advanced by an opponent.

    If you claim that impression I attributed it to your obscurantism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *