“War clouds are gathering. A hard rain is soon going to fall.”


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.

Link here.

Just read it.

Share

148 comments

  • wayne

    yes
    (follow VDH regularly.)

    His weekly Hoover podcast expands on this topic quite a bit–
    The Classicist: A Dangerous Four Months
    Victor Davis Hanson
    9-22-16
    http://www.hoover.org/research/classicist-dangerous-four-months
    (15:09)
    audio stream or download

  • Joe

    Also listen to his weekly podcasts, and follow on the JB show, he paints a very dark picture.

  • Localfluff

    Indeed, ruthless brutality is now necessary in order to restore deterrence. One has to demonstrate that principle now reigns again and that there will never be any kind of compromise with corruption or other evil. Those who do not understand and obey will cease to exist. This has to be demonstrated. Teaching by killing lots of people. An investment once done, but now wasted for nothing.

  • Localfluff: While I certainly agree that the time has come for some hard action against the violent and power-hungry corrupt countries in the world, many of which are Islamic, I am bothered by how you seem to relish the idea.

    In World War II, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower stood firm, demanded total victory, made no compromises with the Axis powers at any time. They also did not relish this reality. They did not shirk it, but they took no joy from it. I empathize with them deeply and feel the same now. I am quite willing to do the same, and to support such harsh action to the limit, but I do not relish it and take no joy that it is necessary.

    You however seem to glory in the idea of killing millions. I find that disturbing.

  • Localfluff

    I take no joy in it! I think the counter reaction against islam will be horrible. But that is the blunt tool of politics. One cannot fine tune these things. It’s not even up to a handful of political leaders in their countries, who have been overthrown recently. Their hate against all of human kind is ubiquitous among the people on their streets. Indoctrination has triumphed. It’s them or us. They started it. We (=all other than they) gave them the option of peaceful cooperation. They turned it down. So here we go. There will be blood.

  • Wodun

    I stopped reading the daily beast link when the author kept making exceptions to explain away Islamic terrorism starting with Iraq. While American troops were targets, most of the time targets were other Muslims. Iran and Syria were running proxy terror groups in Iraq to kill Iraqi civilians and start a Sunni shia civil war.

    That is a lot like what is happening all over the Middle East. The problem of Islamic Terrorism or Islamism can’t be narrowly defined to a single group of bad actors. There are hundreds if not thousands of groups acting alone, with state sponsors, or with each other.

    Must!ims are the largest numerical group of victims because the intra-Islam war has been raging for 1400 years or so. But other groups like Jews, Christians, Yazidis, and others are the primary victims and are not being helped by the golobalists who insist we take in millions of refugees. They same Muslim refugees are responsible for the persecution of others. Often times these other minority groups are abused and murdered during the refugee migration.

    The entire Muslim world is at war. The link can’t refute that.

    The link also doesn’t address the other danger areas of Russia, China, and North Korea.

  • Lee S.

    If the US stopped blaming Russia for just about everything, and tried working with them they would not seem so dangerous… ( they have no money and no appetite for a war… Crimea was always part of Russia and they have the right idea in Syria backing Assad… Regime change just doesn’t work in the Middle East…)
    I do believe however that North Korea needs disarming , and radical Islam needs addressing, but who exactly are you going to bomb? There is no target and no army to fight.
    It is also worth remembering that it us we ( I am English ) who created the current mess in the first place… I wish I had an answer but it seems no one does…

  • wayne

    Yow—- leave it to you-know-who, to try and explain away the self avowed enemies of the USA.

  • Jwing

    I just finished reading VDH’s article online on lucianne.com and immediately went to your website, Robert, to suggest that you post it as I knew it is an important article that you would probably post. Well,…you beat me to it.
    Mr. Hansen is soberingly correct in his analysis of the hair trigger that the world is facing. God, please, help us through this.

  • Cotour

    If there is to be some kind of cohesive action against factions of Islam there will first have to be the redefining of it as a religion. The dual aspect of Islam as being both a religion and also the codified law of their system of governance must be readjusted in how American law sees it related to the Constitution and the First Amendment.

    And before Andrew W gets going on this subject I suggest you review my comments on Islam and patriarchy that I have previously made. This may in fact be the moment where some kind of reform Islam is created.

    Nah, probably not.

  • wayne

    I’d take this opportunity to highly recommend any Victor Davis Hanson material from Hillsdale College, and this one in particular is cogent.

    Victor Davis Hanson – World War II Leadership
    Hillsdale College seminar in military history 2012
    https://youtu.be/w_jZVCk50Cw

  • Mitch S.

    Ever read Lee Boyland’s “Clash of Civilizations” books?
    I read the first, “The Rings of Allah” because I was intrigued by Boyland’s background in nuclear weapon tech.
    Now that “Hilda Rodman” is about to be elected President, I think about that book more often…

  • Cotour

    Uh, oh……..calling all Cruz supporters:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-rival-cruz-to-throw-support-to-gop-nominee-228584

    Cruz finally taking care of business. I salute you Ted Cruz.

  • pzatchok

    no-islam-isn-t-inherently-violent-and-the-math-proves-it.html

    Sorry but math proves nothing but that the vast majority of Muslims live in Islamic nations and have few non Muslims to be violent against.

    Math does prove that the VAST majority of the terrorist acts in the last century have been by Muslims. If you include all terrorist acts worldwide, including those acts by Palestinians against Israeli citizens.

    I do believe that Islam will sometime soon make a major reform move towards a more peaceful religion.
    The violent radicals are attacking other Muslims more often than non Muslims now.
    If this continues the peaceful Muslims will force a reform of Islam to refute violence and if we are lucky they will move to dropping the requirement of Islamic law or Sharia law as a basis of a nations laws.

    The radicals are offended with every Muslim nation that has dealing with non Muslim nations claiming that they are being interfered with by outside forces. If a Muslim nation wants to do business with non Muslim nation they will have to repress the radicals and move against them, which is getting harder without reform.

  • Alex

    I am sorry, Mr. Zimmerman, I have to correct you: The most violent and power-hungry corrupt countries in the world is USA. I am sorry again, but fact is fact. USA owns the most powerful army, performed most wars of all nations, and is a police state itself, where as 25% of world’s prisoners are capitved in US jails.

  • Phill O

    (((Cotour
    September 23, 2016 at 11:57 am

    Uh, oh……..calling all Cruz supporters:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-rival-cruz-to-throw-support-to-gop-nominee-228584

    Cruz finally taking care of business. I salute you Ted Cruz.))))

    Now he is set to make the statement that Bob prepared for him; something like – I will be ready in the senate to help Trump implement the conservative principle he has campaigned on.

    Andrew, it may be time for you to broaden your horizons and read some books written by troops who were in Iraq and Afghanistan. Level of barbarism by the Taliban and ISIS and all the other terror groups, is absolutely astounding. It seems not to be dependent upon which nationality wrote the book, the general theme is not good for the Islamists. Of course everyone in a country will be Muslim when there is such intimidation. Kind like Obama on steroids with no holds barred.

  • Kevin Haynie

    The previous post is incorrect. The USA could have conquered the world at the end of WW II when we alone possessed atomic and then nuclear weapons and had the largest standing remaining army. Our involvement in the utterly irrational WW I was a terrible mistake , but most of our war fighting has been due to exactly the kind of defense against evil that Mr. Hanson is talking about. I wonder if as a nation , we will be able to pull together when all this jumps ugly. Too much of the enemy is now inside the borders. And the boardrooms. And the classrooms. They have been for a long time.

  • wodun

    Alex,

    The Americans use of military and diplomatic power has made Earth the safest places it has ever been. You are welcome.

  • Phill O

    Kevin Haynie

    Way to go. You are correct about the USA being a major player to make the world safer. Let us not forget the Brits, the Aussies, the Canadians and New Zealanders.

    I remember a speech ex prime minster Harper made to the UN about Isreal’s enemies; It went something like Whoever attacks and tries to eliminate Israel, the whole world has had to deal with them, eventually. We are currently seeing that play out globally where the enemies of Israel (Islamists) are now going after the world.

  • Edward

    Alex writes: “The most violent and power-hungry corrupt countries in the world is USA.

    Germany was power hungry. The Soviet Union was power hungry. Islam is power hungry (demanding a worldwide caliphate).

    The world begs us to help them out of tough situations, calls us the world’s police force, and after all that expenditure of blood and treasure, this is the thanks that we get. Ignored is the fact that we invented and continue the policy of giving back conquered territory (which is why we are called in the first place), but stated is the phrase “power-hungry.”

    Ingrate.

    No wonder Obama is willing to let Crimea and the Ukraine to suffer on their own.

    Lee S. wrote: “Crimea was always part of Russia

    Which explains why Russia had to take it back from the Ukraine.

    Oops. No, the explanation is that the Ukraine had it because it was given to them. Thus it was not “always” part of Russia, it was part of the Ukraine.

    Historically it may have been part of Russia, but then again, the Philippines were once part of the United States, but does anyone think it would be acceptable for the US to “take back” the Philippines? Neither do I. So why is it acceptable for Russia to steal Crimea?

    Lee S. wrote: “It is also worth remembering that it us we ( I am English ) who created the current mess in the first place…

    No, the English did not write the Koran, the book of Jihad. At worst, the English and the French created borders in the Middle East that would ensure that the Muslims would not wreak havoc with the rest of the world (as they historically have done), and it worked until Hitler allied with them.

  • Tom Billings

    Lee S. wrote: “Crimea was always part of Russia”

    In the Wikipedia article on the Crimean Peninsula we see:

    “In 1783, Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire.”

    So, since the US declared independence in 1776, was the US always independent?

    Always is a long, long time. Not just 234 years.

    Also, Lee S. wrote: “It is also worth remembering that it us we ( I am English ) who created the current mess in the first place…”

    No, …that would be the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928, with the express purpose of reviving the imperial Caliphate. It is the existence of Caliphate revivalism that *is* the current mess. *Every* “islamist” group has the intent of reviving the imperial Caliphate, whether they are Salafist or Khomeinist. Note that for all its “anti-imperialist” ravings between 1930 and 1991, “the socialist camp” and its present Leftist remnants are on the side of these forthright imperialists. This is not the collapsing imperialism of the period 1920-1980. This is an attempt to rebuild the Arab copy of the Roman Empire of Constantinople, in all its bloody-fanged gory glory.

    To get an idea of how big a mess this is, think of the reaction we would see on the Left to a billions-of-dollars-every-year attempt to recreate the Roman Empire of Constantinople, with all its pretension to universal dominion in the name of God.

  • ken anthony

    VHD is absolutely right which is one of the reasons I moved to this nowhere town in AZ close to the NM border several years ago. Something we’ve never seen before is coming with a sudden large death toll when it first arrives. We can’t stop it. We can only do our best to prepare for it.

  • Lee Stevenson

    Sorry guys, when I said Crimea was “always a part of Russia” I should have said “Crimea is a russian speaking area and has been part of Russia for the last century or so. They held a democratic referendum regarding falling back under the umbrella of Russian control after the ousting of the democratically elected government of Ukraine, and after suffering abuses at the hands of the extremist right wing rebels who took control”

    You can spin my comments how you like, but try speaking to people from Crimea, ( I know several ), and they will almost to a man say that they would rather be protected by Russia than by the toothless yet expansionist bullcrap that is NATO.

    On the subject of which, imagine if Russia was inviting Canada and Mexico to join its alliance… the US would get a little annoyed no? In essence this is what is happening with Russia, with NATO actively encouraging nations that share a border with Russia to join them.

    I am an English citizen who lives in Sweden, and have been very vocal in my protest in the debate about Sweden joining NATO…. I do not think that it will make my country of residence safer, indeed quite the opposite.

    There are many things in the world to be concerned about, but expansionist Russia is not one of them…
    All that said, poking a sleeping bear with a big stick is seldom a good idea.

  • Lee S.

    I should also add that when I said ” we created this mess” I was referring to the policy implemented by Bush and Blair of invading Afghanistan and Iraq and facilitating regime change elsewhere in the region.
    Living in Europe I see first hand the problems that are arising from the MASSIVE influx of refugees from the middle east, and it is probably the worst crisis we have had to deal with since the end of world war II…. I have literally sat with a guy from Iraq who cried as he told me about his home being bombed and how under Saddam his children went to university and the busses ran and christians were free to go to church. This man is no terrorist, only a normal guy wanting somewhere for him and his family to live in peace. His entire life was destroyed by western intervention.
    Previous to 9/11 there was a small but determined group of terrorists hell bent on causing terror in the “West”, however every move made since has had the effect of throwing gasoline on the fire, and now we are living in the inferno we created, with ISIS able to inspire home grown radicals over the world.
    Oh that the clock could be wound back and the interventions stopped that created the power vacuums which have allowed ISIS to grow and prosper, but the genie cannot be put back in the bottle, and I have no idea how we can solve this problem.
    I do know however that we owe a debt to the honest folk who have lost everything due to the war crimes committed by the west, fought under false pretences and in the name of “peace”.

  • Laurie

    Enough finger pointing.

    Russia is becoming more aggressive, no dispute.
    Iran is building a bomb to destroy the Jews – anyone doubt this?
    Islam teaches the annihilation of the infidel – are you a believer?

    Somehow the US is going to fix this?

    The President plays Soro’s game in Ukraine.
    The President arms the Muslim brotherhood.
    The President arms jihadis in Syria and Iraq.
    The President throws the Kurds to Erdogen.
    The President supports the killing in Yemen.
    The President withdraws military support from El Sisi.
    The President plants NATO on Russia’s borders.
    The President pays a ransom plus billions to Iran.
    The President actively undermined Likud while feigning independence.

    The President involves the Muslim brotherhood in his administration.

    What do you conclude? This man of peace is not an idle, paper tiger.

    .. and he will not stop until Israel, and you, and I are under the heel of the house of Saud.

    If you doubt this, just take him at his own words and deeds.

    Start a shooting war if you like, but you’d better recognize the enemy first.

  • Alex

    Laurie: “Iran is building a bomb to destroy the Jews – anyone doubt this?” Yes, I doubt it! Israel owns about 300 nuclear weapons, including large fusion bombs. No chance, that Iran is not able to threaten Israel with some small Hiroshima type nuclear bombs against this arsenal. Iran does not want self destroyed completely.

  • Andrew_W

    Lee S.
    September 23, 2016 at 9:16 pm

    Exactly right.

    Sadly most of the denizens of this blog are convinced that Islam is out to take over the world, if it’s not Islam, it’s the leftists, or the communists, or the Chinese.
    No matter how much evidence you provide them that the vast majority of Muslims get along fine with the rest of Humanity and that the rest of humanity gets along fine with the vast majority of Muslims.
    No matter how much evidence you provide that the Quran does not preach aggression towards non Muslims.
    No matter how much evidence you provide that the recent rapid increase in terrorism is attributable to the relative few Muslims whose lives have been wreaked by Western military involvement in Muslim countries, and not from their adherence to the Islamic faith, the teachings of which have been a constant for over a thousand years.
    No matter that prior to those Western military adventures the rate of Islamist terrorism was far lower, lower than that of other, non Muslim terrorists.
    No matter how much evidence you provide that Muslim countries are no more violent, and in fact are often less violent, than non Muslim countries.
    No matter if you provide proof that “honor” killings are condemned by Islam.
    No matter how often you point out that 99% of the Muslims in this world enjoy and appreciate the strong trade, tourism, sport and cultural links with other peoples.
    No matter that Muslims actually rate low compared to the Japanese, the Chinese and Christians in the number of people they’ve been responsible for killing in war in the last 100 years, or the last 1000 years.
    No matter that numerous Muslim organizations, Muslim countries and Muslim people condemn terrorism.
    No matter that human behavior dictates that if Islam was the religion that they image most Muslims would be utterly determined to abandon the religion.
    No matter that if Islam was as they imagine the 3 million US Muslims – that they assume are Christian and Jew haters – would manage to commit a lot more than half a dozen or so largely ineffectual terror attacks that occur each year in the US.
    No matter that they never seek any information on Islam other than from hate sites like Religion Of Peace.

    All of these things are irrelevant, because they KNOW that Muslims are all out to conquer the world and enforce Sharia law on everyone else, the reality of the real world is irrelevant to them, they don’t care about reality, what they care about is clinging to the narrative that “proves” to them that their particular ideology is better than anything anyone else could believe in.

  • Andrew_W

    Phill O
    September 23, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    While in recent decades atrocities committed by Western troops have become a rarity as a result of training (I’d argue that Russian forces still have few qualms about slaughtering innocent people) , such things are still unfortunately common amongst poorly trained and irregular forces from other countries: Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia, Colombia, The Philippines, Uganda, Liberia, Vietnam, South Africa, Myanmar, Chile (under Pinochet), Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone all in the last few decades, and a hell of a lot of other, more “civilized” countries, before 1945.

  • wayne

    Andrew_W:
    endless apologizing for barbarians.

    Victor Davis Hanson:
    War in the Post Modern World – why the new laws of conflict are surreal
    https://youtu.be/1o51Kt2WAqI

  • wayne

    Victor Davis Hanson on Obama and the current administration.
    (2012)
    https://youtu.be/0LX1xgrIVPE

  • pzatchok

    “No matter that Muslims actually rate low compared to the Japanese, the Chinese and Christians in the number of people they’ve been responsible for killing in war in the last 100 years, or the last 1000 years.”

    You example of Muslims not killing as many people as others in war is a little off.
    First off their nations for the most part are about a century behind in modern warfare techniques so of course they have not killed as many.
    The fact that they have not defeated a western nation in war since the beginning of the Ottoman Empire is one of the reasons they claim that their young people are angry, they have no military hero’s.

    You have forgotten Bosnia, Africa and India/Pakistan.

    India and Pakistan used to be one nation until the Muslims found out they could not live under peaceful Hindu rule even if led by Gandhi. So after many deaths and terrorist attacks they came to an agreement and split up. To this day they are still at a cold war footing.

    But all the apologists are correct. If it wasn’t for western interference Constantinople would never have been attacked.

  • Wayne

    100 million people intentionally killed by socialist-ideology in the 20th century.

    https://archive.org/details/TheBlackBookofCommunism10

  • Cotour

    “No matter that human behavior dictates that if Islam was the religion that they image most Muslims would be utterly determined to abandon the religion.”

    ? Are you asserting that most all Muslims would reject their religion and leave it IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO?

    Think about what you wrote here and balance that against what you have written in defending Islam. This one simple sentence undermines your entire position and beliefs about what Islam is (and is not).

    If a majority of Muslims by your own estimation would “abandon” their religion, why haven’t they already done so?

    You are going to have to explain this to me.

  • Wayne

    Mark Steyn’s Stand Against Climate Alarmism:
    In-Depth with the Climate Crybully Conniption-Inducer
    https://youtu.be/L7wQp0Ir5Vc

  • Andrew_W

    Wayne, watched a bit of your first video, as it’s over an hour long and the only point he’s made so far is that in warfare less advanced societies utilize the technology of their more advanced adversaries when they can, (is that supposed to be news?), and that better communications have made the world smaller with the result that civilian populations are more aware of the atrocities committed by their own forces, more able to identify with the victims of those atrocities, this resulting in the ham stringing of those forces in committing atrocities.

    If Hanson makes some note worthy point during the video tell me at what time in the video he does so and I’ll watch it from then.

  • Andrew_W

    pzatchok
    September 24, 2016 at 8:18 am

    First off their nations for the most part are about a century behind in modern warfare techniques so of course they have not killed as many.

    It doesn’t take advanced technology to kill lots of people, as demonstrated in Cambodia, Rwanda and numerous other places, all that’s required is a blood lust.

    You have forgotten Bosnia, Africa and India/Pakistan.

    I haven’t forgotten those places, Muslims weren’t responsible for the majority of the deaths in any of those places in times of conflict.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour

    ? Are you asserting that most all Muslims would reject their religion and leave it IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO?

    There are plenty of people on the Conservative right in US politics that believe that Muslims are forced to remain in their religion, that their religion somehow forces their compliance, this is especially true of how many non Muslims see the roll of Women in Islam.

    The reality is that there are plenty of countries in which Muslims of either gender who wished to leave Islam can do so without fear, there has been no mass exodus of Muslims from Islam in America or Britain, or New Zealand or pretty much anywhere else (though there was an article recently claiming thousands of young Kurds were leaving Islam as a consequence of the war against ISIS), Apostasy is a serious matter in many Muslim countries, but its occurrence and punishment for it is rare.

  • Cotour

    You have never commented on the patriarchal nature of Islam and how it is not compatible with Western philosophy.

    And you have never commented on how Islam is both a religion and also the basis for Islamic law, also not compatible with Western philosophy.

    You seem like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

  • Edward

    Lee Stevenson ,
    You wrote: “I should have said “Crimea is a russian speaking area and has been part of Russia for the last century or so. … You can spin my comments how you like

    Actually, it was gifted to the Ukraine half a century or so ago. There is no spinning, you used the word “always,” and you were being corrected. As you are being corrected again, now.

    You wrote: “imagine if Russia was inviting

    Now that is spin. Are you suggesting that all those troops that the Russians have on the Ukrainian border are “inviting” Ukraine to join Russia? When the threat is to join peacefully or suffer a war from a much larger and meaner enemy, well, that is hardly an “invitation.”

    You wrote: “There are many things in the world to be concerned about, but expansionist Russia is not one of them…

    Well, so long as you think that it is acceptable for a country to grab territory …, but I would not compare such a country to a sleeping bear. That bear is awake, active, and hungry for territory and power. Otherwise it would have honored its Peace and Friendship Treaty rather than sending in unmarked forces to take over Crimea.

    You wrote: “Living in Europe I see first hand the problems that are arising from the MASSIVE influx of refugees from the middle east

    Those refugees are not the result of Bush or Blair. Those are the result of European and Russian policies that encouraged and aided in the “Arab Spring” which was not as refreshing as the name is intended to make it sound. That so-called spring resulted in the refugees, and Obama made a point of staying out of it, or at best he led from his behind, letting others do the work that you think Bush did. That the refugees are infiltrating Europe is the fault of the EU’s socialist leadership; neither Bush nor Blair had any say in the matter.

    You wrote: “I have literally sat with a guy from Iraq

    Yes, Saddam was a much nicer supporter of terrorism than ISIS, but that isn’t saying anything. Saddam only brutally murdered those people who disagreed with him, but ISIS even more brutally murders anyone who disagrees with the bad book, the Koran, as it is written rather than reinterpreted by the peaceful Muslims.

    You wrote: “however every move made since has had the effect of throwing gasoline on the fire

    Again, not true. Under Bush, terrorism was much less than it is now that the socialists hold the leadership around the world. Bush’s leadership quashed Al Qaida, but since he left office, it and other terrorist groups have thrived, and other groups, such as ISIS, have formed and thrived, too. The inferno was created by the socialists, not by us.

    You wrote: “but the genie cannot be put back in the bottle

    Which is Robert’s point.

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “No matter how much evidence you provide them that the vast majority of Muslims get along fine with the rest of Humanity and that the rest of humanity gets along fine with the vast majority of Muslims.

    No one here has ever disputed such a claim. You continue to make up your own facts. What is stated here is that Islam is the source of a whole lot of the evil that is loose in the world. This is because it is the religion of Jihad, not of peace. It is the religion of submission, and even after submission Muslims are still subject to Jihad, especially those Muslims who get along fine with the rest of humanity.

    Your evidence does not contradict that the Koran is written for Jihad and worldwide caliphate; your evidence just points out some less violent ways of dealing with the infidel.

    You wrote: “No matter how much evidence you provide that the Quran does not preach aggression towards non Muslims.

    Except for the passages that do preach aggression towards the infidel. That trumps your evidence every single time. Your evidence is unconvincing, because the counter evidence is so compelling. In fact, the person who resists accepting the evidence presented is you, Andrew_W.

    You wrote: “No matter that prior to those Western military adventures the rate of Islamist terrorism was far lower, lower than that of other, non Muslim terrorists.

    Well, you finally are willing to admit that Islam preaches aggression towards the infidels as a reaction to the presence of the infidels. In fact, the two attacks on New York’s World Trade Center (1993 and 2001) were based upon the Western military adventure undertaken at the explicit request of Muslims in Qatar and other regional Muslim countries. We help out Muslims, and our reward is Jihad and terror. The ingratitude of that religion.

    Or are you suggesting that this request was subterfuge to create an excuse for Muslim terrorism against the West?

    In fact, as you noted, we have even more terrorism now that we have left these areas than we had when we were there, so your suggestion that it is our fault for being there is completely incorrect, as they seem even angrier now that we left them alone.

    When we help them, we get terrorism. When we leave them be, we get terrorism. No matter what we do, we get terrorism.

    You wrote: “No matter that numerous Muslim organizations, Muslim countries and Muslim people condemn terrorism.

    Hardly numerous enough to be heard. I know of one Islamic prince who condemns terrorism. However, I know that CAIR is profoundly pro-terrorist, arguing vociferously against counter-terrorism. They may even send funds to terrorist groups.

    You wrote: “there has been no mass exodus of Muslims from Islam in America or Britain, or New Zealand or pretty much anywhere else

    In Islam, where it is practiced as written in the bad book, apostasy is punished and is done so quite often. That some apostates go unpunished is like saying that rape is legal because not all rapists are punished. Per your original statement, “if Islam was the religion that they image most Muslims would be utterly determined to abandon the religion,” it is in the places where it is practiced as the bad book instructs that are the places where apostates are punished and discouraged from abandoning it (similar to being shot for climbing the Berlin Wall). In the places where apostates would not be punished, it is not (yet) practiced in such a way that most Muslims would be utterly determined to abandon it.

    Cotour wrote: “This one simple sentence undermines your entire position and beliefs about what Islam is (and is not).

    Well said.

  • Andrew_W

    I’d argue that it’s not as patriarchal as you imagine, there have been Muslim women leaders of their nations, there are plenty of Muslim women holding senior positions in government in numerous countries, I know of nothing in Islamic teaching that excludes women from holding positions of power, there are only two democratic countries that bar women from voting, the Vatican City and Saudi Arabia.
    So I think you have the impression that Islam is more patriarchal than it actually is, and perhaps you have the impression that Western Society is less patriarchal than it actually is.
    Islam does not demand women wear burka, it does expect that both men and women cover to keep their modesty, there’s debate over how to interpret that.
    Women have traditional rolls in Islam, as they do in Christianity, but again, I’ve seen no evidence of firm barriers outside of a few countries, and even Saudi Arabia is now allowing women to stand for local government positions.

    In terms of criminal law I’ve got no idea what Western philosophy is supposed to be, guilty until proven innocent? I don’t think that’s contrary to Islamic law.

  • Cotour

    Andrew W:

    “No matter that human behavior dictates that if Islam was the religion that they image most Muslims would be utterly determined to abandon the religion.”

    This is the sentence that you wrote that I need explained, not my own sentence.

  • Andrew_W

    This is because it is the religion of Jihad, not of peace. It is the religion of submission, and even after submission Muslims are still subject to Jihad, especially those Muslims who get along fine with the rest of humanity.

    Define Jihad.

    Except for the passages that do preach aggression towards the infidel.

    I’ve addressed such passages, they’re practiced in the context of what an appropriate response is if faced with aggression.

    If you don’t accept that context, quote passages that advocate Muslim aggression against other peaceful people.

    you finally are willing to admit that Islam preaches aggression towards the infidels as a reaction to the presence of the infidels.

    Several times I’ve made the point that Muslims are allowed to reciprocate aggression against them.

    In fact, the two attacks on New York’s World Trade Center (1993 and 2001) were based upon the Western military adventure undertaken at the explicit request of Muslims in Qatar and other regional Muslim countries. We help out Muslims, and our reward is Jihad and terror.

    Very, very few Muslims condoned the 9/11 attacks, again you try to link the actions of a few terrorist renegades to all in a vast and diverse religion. If I can find an example of someone committing a crime in the name of Conservatism, is that proof to you that Conservatives condone such crimes? Personally I think only nutters would claim such as proof.

    we have even more terrorism now that we have left these areas than we had when we were there

    The US and other nations have completely disengaged militarily from Muslim countries? Nope.

    Hardly numerous enough to be heard.

    What can I say? You read only what you want to hear. Maybe you should use Google to seek out what doesn’t get the coverage that advocacy of war does. Speaking out against violence doesn’t make such an interesting news story

    In Islam, where it is practiced as written in the bad book, apostasy is punished and is done so quite often.

    Wrong.
    The Quran has no mention of any punishment for apostates, nor does the Quran refer to the need to force an apostate to return to Islam or to kill him if he doesn’t.

  • Andrew_W

    “No matter that human behavior dictates that if Islam was the religion that they image, most Muslims would be utterly determined to abandon the religion.”

    A lot of the criticism of Islam is based on the belief that Muslims (especially women) aren’t free, that the religion subjugates them, If such were the case, that Muslims should be unhappy being Muslims, they would either leave the faith or the faith would change to retain the faithful.

    Similar to a point I made that unpopular dictatorships eventually fall unless they’re propped up by powerful outsiders.

  • Cotour

    Unpopular dictators is an interesting Islam analogy choice.

    While Islam is not at all about being “popular” it is what it is and my understanding of it in much of the real world if you were to speak against it or against what the “prophet” wrote, you have a problem of the serious kind.

    Creating an equivalency between Islam and dictatorship was an interesting choice for you, If you were to oppose either again you would have problems of the serious kind.

    I do not for one second accept your explanations on this subject, you speak not in the objective but only in the defensive subjective. If you can only defend something in the subjective there is probably a fundamental problem with your argument.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “Very, very few Muslims condoned the 9/11 attacks

    Correct. Only a few hundred million literally cheered in the streets, and only several hundred million more condoned it, leaving only a few tens of millions in the West to pretend that they were only neutral about it. One of these days, you should read the Muslims’ polls on this topic.

    “Very, very few” indeed. You have strange definitions of “few” and “very.”

    Oh, sorry. When I said “correct,” up above, I was being sarcastic — in case that didn’t come across.

    You wrote: “A lot of the criticism of Islam is based on the …

    … reading of the Koran and of Islamic law: Sharia. Even in context, it says what it says, not what you say it says. Your ignorance is astonishing. Even about patriarchal societies, which at times have had queens leading them, yet were still patriarchal. Astonishing ignorance, especially for a ’63 model.

    You wrote: “Define Jihad.

    The depths of your ignorance on this topic has no end to its astonishment. Here you are, pretending to be an expert, even though you are reduced to looking up all your information on the internet in order to “learn” about Islam, yet you do not know a fundamental precept of Islam. Unlike the rest of your faulty knowledge about the religion of Jihad, you aren’t even bothered to look it up on your own. Perhaps because you already know that it disproves your point.

    You honestly do not understand what you are talking about, because, as you point out, Islam is allowed to defend itself:
    “Several times I’ve made the point that Muslims are allowed to reciprocate aggression against them.”

    Except, there was no aggression against them to justify their own aggression against the West and its infidels.

    As I pointed out, the West was requested to come to the assistance of Qatar, which was not an aggression against Islam. After the aggression by Muslims on 9/11/01, the US reciprocated against those who were behind that Muslim attack. An attack by Muslims who had not been victims of US aggression. They were conducting unprovoked Jihad against the US. Since Muslims are permitted to reciprocate aggression against them, they must understand the concept that the US has an equal right to reciprocate against this Jihad. The aggressors were the Muslims.

    Other Muslims, not the ones attacked, chose to terrorize the infidel world in response to the non-aggression, which means that Muslims themselves defined it a Jihad by all of Islam against the infidels, as the US made it very clear that she was attacking only those who supported the attack against her. That the rest of the Islamic world interpreted it as an attack against all of Islam means that it is the Muslims who are the aggressors. Their bad book instructs them to be bad, and bad they are.

    Thus, the conclusion that Qatar’s request was a pretext to start a Jihad against the West.

    The rest of your blathering is just as faulty.

    The concept of the intelligence quotient is the ability to learn. Over the past few weeks, you have demonstrated a complete lack of this ability. Some day, in the far distant future, after you have learned a thing or two about reality, please come back and have an intelligent discussion. Meanwhile, continue to contribute to BtB by recommending Evening Pauses to Robert.

  • Andrew_W

    Only a few hundred million literally cheered in the streets,

    You’re a disgusting liar.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks#Muslim_world

    Even in context, it says what it says, not what you say it says.

    In other threads I’ve provided links with evidence supporting my case with regard to interpretation of the Quran, you have not, all you’ve provided is unsupported assertions.

    The depths of your ignorance on this topic has no end to its astonishment.

    Obviously the definition of Jihad wasn’t what you thought it was, so you blow smoke.

    the West was requested to come to the assistance of Qatar, which was not an aggression against Islam.

    Wow, what are you talking about, what assistance of Qatar?

    After the aggression by Muslims on 9/11/01, the US reciprocated against those who were behind that Muslim attack.

    Iraq was not behind 9/11, Al-Qaeda was, Saddam and Al-Qaeda hated each other, yet the US and allies attacked Iraq.

    The concept of the intelligence quotient is the ability to learn. . .

    A pathetic ad hominem.

  • Cotour

    “Iraq was not behind 9/11, Al-Qaeda was, Saddam and Al-Qaeda hated each other, yet the US and allies attacked Iraq.”

    See Necon agenda, also see Strategy Over Morality (S.O.M.).

  • Alexey

    The main reason Germany got involved in WWI is ‘land lock” nation was afraid of attack by the neighbours. Nobody tried to de-escalate situation. It’s the same situation in Russia NOW. She’s surrounded by the neighbours having 1000 years old grudges, Estonia and her Ivangorod demands comes to mind. Behind them arrogant power ready to strike if there’s opening. Why did US attack Libya? Just because she could. Absolutely, a lot of people in Russia scratching they heads, Are we next? When people say V. Putin paranoid, they have no clue how bad is it. Not to mention alcoholism and heavy drug use everywhere in Russia including military. So, war is not impossible event. Nobody wants de-escalate situation NOW, little spark and shaking hand of intoxicated ‘warrior’ can push a big red button.

  • Andrew_W

    Strategy Over Morality (S.O.M.).

    We’ve discussed SOM before, my conclusion was that while it may have been a useful strategy in times of old, in todays communications rich environment where the deceptions employed to facilitate SOM can quickly be exposed, its a strategy that’s likely to bounce back and bite you on the bum, as has often happened when used in recent times.

  • wayne

    Christopher Hitchens destroys all popular arguments against Iraq War
    https://youtu.be/cp4U3garYSs

    Christopher Hitchens destroys Islam Apologist and hater of the West
    https://youtu.be/x6mcxFYQRdg

  • pzatchok

    Andrew

    Please quit using Wiki anything as a source. As a starting point for further research maybe. But please not as a final proof of anything.
    If you will not read anything we propose at least do enough to look further than WiKi.

    Alexey

    “The main reason Germany got involved in WWI is ‘land lock” nation was afraid of attack by the neighbours. ”

    WOW. I just have no comments for this statement other than WOW!

    Further discussion with either of you is pointless.

    Good luck in the future.

  • Andrew_W

    pzatchok, I rate wiki as a more reliable source than the politicized blogs and youtube videos others have offered.

  • Wodun

    Leaving Islam is a death sentence. People don’t have the choice in many Muslim countries. A woman can’t even run away because a woman on her own is subject to all kinds of brutality.

    Also, the USA went to war in Iraq because they were violating the agreements made at the end of the Gulf War. No one blamed Iraq for 9/11. It was necessary to maintain the Pax Americana, aka the reason why the Earth is the most peaceful its ever been.

  • Andrew_W

    George W was looking for excuses for a war. In October 1998, removing the Hussein regime became official U.S. foreign policy with enactment of the Iraq Liberation Act. Initially the claim was that there was a secret relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, with a claimed series of meetings between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence services, when proof of such a link proved inadequate, and the US public remained skeptical that war was justified, the Bush administration changed tack with claims of a secret WMD program still in operation in Iraq despite numerous weapons inspectors on the ground failing to find evidence of an such program.

    It was necessary to maintain the Pax Americana, aka the reason why the Earth is the most peaceful its ever been.

    While I agree the Earth is more peaceful than it has been in the past, and that America has been a part of that stability, I think that George W Bush and his need to have his own war has been a disaster for peace, directly causing the instability in Iraq, and indirectly causing the birth and expansion of ISIS.

    I see the current fixation on the belief of a continuing nuclear program in Iran as essentially identical to the fixation on a phantom WMD program in Iraq, with many of the same people behind both claims, all based in the same fantasies.

  • Wayne

    You just won’t give it up; a total and complete apologist, for the Scum-of-the-Earth.

    Complete, hook-line-and-sinker, supporter of an anti-American leftist agenda.

    Your man, B. Hussein Obama, has been pulling the levers for 7 years, but “it’s Bush’s fault.” Why don’t you just blame Reagan?

    Pathetic, tedious, repetitive, BS.

  • Wayne

    Christopher Hitchens- On WMDs and Iraq
    https://youtu.be/s1rOZkG32m4

  • Wayne

    Christopher Hitchens – The case for intervention in Iraq
    https://youtu.be/d4nNdB5FbQ4

  • Wayne

    Christopher Hitchens “Islam is Bullshit and I am Offended”
    https://youtu.be/bIUyMwOJ3aw

  • Wayne

    Christopher Hitchens on Islam and Muhammad
    https://youtu.be/CADoG-gu5Zk

  • Cotour

    “We’ve discussed S.O.M. before, my conclusion was that while it may have been a useful strategy in times of old, in today’s communications rich environment where the deceptions employed to facilitate S.O.M. can quickly be exposed, its a strategy that’s likely to bounce back and bite you on the bum, as has often happened when used in recent times.”

    Your point about the level of technology may have some validity. However, S.O.M. is not something that goes away, it is the foundation of the highest levels of power. Higher technology only presents newer, bigger and more manipulative ways of applying it. Advancement in technology is always a double edged sword.

    On this particular Iraq subject what we are talking about are events that occurred just on the edge of people having access to that technology and properly using it to properly inform themselves. I.E. cell phones, smart phones, video recording, internet sharing and analysis etc. You make a valid point but the powers that be strategically control all of the opinion machines and / or have legal oversight of those public opinion machine and the legal system. This is also the realm of clandestine activity, proxy actors and plausible deniability.

    As an instructive example, has Hillary Clinton been charged in her blatantly un-secure and illegal email communication system while the Secretary Of State? No, she has not and will not, think about why.

    http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-investigation-of-emailgate-was-a-sham/

    The Iraq policy and “other” actions engineered by the Bush administration to get us into Iraq and other places was a direct result of Bush being empowered by the people, just like the consequences that have been realized by the American people by the actions of the Obama administration. (this is pure Amoral S.O.M. thinking and agenda where anything can be justified if the end goal is compelling enough in an empowered someones opinion).

    While there can be a pedestrian moral discussion and outrage about whether the policy was “good” or “bad” the strategy was developed and power was applied for the various reasons of control that they were applied for. A second argument can be made that the Obama administration feeling that they were being forced into continuing a policy that they did not agree with chose to abandon it and a strong argument can be made that that “moral” action by Obama is really the cause of the state of chaos the world finds itself experiencing. S.O.M. is about power and control and Obama has surrendered the strategic power that he inherited because it was not to his “liking”. I could make an argument for treason based on his actions.

    This is different think but it is actually how things actually work at the levels we are talking about.

    When you actually understand this, first you will have fear, then understanding will be strangely comforting.

  • Garry

    Andrew W wrote,

    “George W was looking for excuses for a war. In October 1998, removing the Hussein regime became official U.S. foreign policy with enactment of the Iraq Liberation Act. Initially the claim was that there was a secret relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, with a claimed series of meetings between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence services, when proof of such a link proved inadequate, and the US public remained skeptical that war was justified, the Bush administration changed tack with claims of a secret WMD program still in operation in Iraq despite numerous weapons inspectors on the ground failing to find evidence of an such program.”

    George W was not president in October 1998.

    Still, I don’t think he did a very good job leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    We were completely justified in going into Iraq in 2003, by Hussein’s defiance of the weapons inspection agreement that he had signed to end the first Gulf War. I suspect that we knew he had weapons of mass destruction because we gave many of them to him (poison gas) during the Iran-Iraq War, in a classic blunder of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Turns out he probably passed them on to Syria, and if he any left them by 2003, he hid them very well.

    Hussein did his absolute best to make it look like he had WMD; on many occasions, shortly after the inspection team announced where they were going next, he would have convoys of trucks leave those sites, and sometimes would sabotage the inspectors’ vehicles to delay their arrival. I think he was publicly thumbing his nose at the US and the sanctions, while getting rid of what WMD he had. Even if we had known he had no WMD and was just thumbing his nose at us, in my opinion that was enough to justify invasion.

    It was a huge mistake for the Bush administration to try to tie Iraq and Al Qaeda together. They should have stuck to the concept of enforcing the inspection agreement that Hussein had signed. There was a lot of pressure from foreign governments (France, Germany, Russia) to end the inspections, so that sanctions could be lifted and multi-billion dollar agreements with their countries’ companies could go into effect.

    I think part of Bush’s motivation was, sadly, to avenge Daddy and finish Daddy’s war.

    We also didn’t have a clear vision of the outcome we wanted in Iraq, nor did we have the will the persist and make it happen (much of the blame for lack of will goes to Democrats who supported the initial invasion, but then opposed the war on political grounds). Lots of missed opportunities, lots of unintended consequences (one of the most horrific being the mass-scale Muslim on Muslim violence), but we were fully justified going in there in the first place, even if the justification wasn’t articulated well.

    I would prefer that we took a longer view in our foreign policy, and invade countries only when we have a clear vision of the intended outcome, along with the will to see it through.

    By the way, don’t take my neglect of Andrew W’s outrageous statements about the “religion of peace” as an endorsement of them; I think he’s being more troll-like on those issues than he is here, and I thought that addressing his distortions in this issue would not constitute feeding the trolls (which I always try to avoid).

  • Cotour

    “I would prefer that we took a longer view in our foreign policy, and invade countries only when we have a clear vision of the intended outcome, along with the will to see it through.”

    Obama surrendered our advantage and in place active strategy and the treasure and blood spilled. Like I said, I can make a strong argument for treason and acting against American interests.

  • Cotour

    Some of the latest examples of the religion of “peace”:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jordan-writer-shot-dead-cartoon_us_57e7dd5ce4b0e80b1ba28ea0?section=&

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/washington-mall-shooting-suspect-captured-24-hour-manhunt-article-1.2804917 Still developing.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/index.html/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/nyregion/chelsea-explosion-what-we-know-and-dont-know.html?_r=0

    Like I previously pointed out, Andrew W seems to only to be able to see Islam from a subjective point of view. I wonder if he can appreciate anyone else’s point of view as those other people witness reality in real time and not in the intellectual realm?

    (I could have made a much longer list.)

  • Andrew_W

    We were completely justified in going into Iraq in 2003, by Hussein’s defiance of the weapons inspection agreement that he had signed to end the first Gulf War.

    Turns out he probably passed them on to Syria,

    Hussein did his absolute best to make it look like he had WMD; on many occasions, shortly after the inspection team announced where they were going next, he would have convoys of trucks leave those sites, and sometimes would sabotage the inspectors’ vehicles to delay their arrival.

    What information do you base those claims on? From the books I’ve read the only inspectors that had any issues with site access or transport or Iraqi transparency were a few US nationals, the other, non American inspectors, and most of the American inspectors were satisfied that the Iraqi’s had cooperated and that there was no WMD program or stockpile (Wodun remains convinced that the few disused shells later discovered that had been poorly disposed of constituted secret Iraqi WMD stockpiles).

  • Cotour

    Your not getting it Andrew W, WMD were the reason that we were going there. It did not matter if they were there or not, but thats the reason. (And as I remember it Hussein did generally want others to believe he had them. WMD are deterrents to those who might want to attack you)

    This legal argument that was laid out and sustained was used as the reason to get there. Your level of burden of proof does not count, it was going to happen.

    Are you aware of the Neocon agenda?

  • Garry

    I got the info from in-depth newspaper/magazine articles at the time. I generally don’t pay attention to the main articles; I seek out in depth articles by people on the ground, and I found several at that time. And if you followed Hussein’s words at the time, it was very obvious that he wanted everyone to think he had WMD and was getting away with it against the Great Satan. In his position, you don’t last long if you have a public stance of acquiescence.

    It is well documented that Iraq used gas in the Iran-Iraq War, as well as against its own people. Where do you think they got it from? Did it just all disappear one day?

    We knew they had WMD at the cease fire in 1991, which is why we put very stringent inspection requirements in place. Perhaps the inspectors weren’t satisfied with the explanations of what Iraq said they had, or what they said they did with it. In fact, many have speculated that Gulf War Syndrome was due to our misguided efforts in destroying Iraqi gas munitions.

    To reiterate, I’m not saying that Bush adequately justified the invasion of Iraq, but that there certainly was good justification.

  • Andrew_W

    And if you followed Hussein’s words at the time, it was very obvious that he wanted everyone to think he had WMD and was getting away with it against the Great Satan.

    That may have been the perception where you are, but my recollection is that when, after the invasion there was a shortage of WMD’s discovered, it was the Bush administration that promoted the narrative that Saddam had set out to convince the world that he actually had WMD’s. Outside of the US what we saw was the US government selling a fiction to the US people as a method of shifting the blame for the invasion onto Saddam, Bush supporters in the US was happy to buy it, but not many others did.

    It is well documented that Iraq used gas in the Iran-Iraq War, as well as against its own people. Where do you think they got it from? Did it just all disappear one day?

    Hundreds of tons of the stuff were destroyed prior to the Second Gulf War:

    in the early 1990s, Iraq turned over to the United Nations more than 40,000 proscribed chemical warheads, half of which were drained and consequently destroyed by Iraq, again under UNSCOM guidance. Add to that the supervised destruction by Iraq of an additional 700 tons of bulk chemical weapons agents, some 3,600 tons of precursor chemicals, and more than 100 pieces of equipment used to produce chemical weapons, and it is clear that significant military quantities of chemical weapons had indeed been identified by Iraqi authorities and destroyed during the period between 1991 and 1996. Moreover, UNSCOM inspectors were able to extrapolate from some excavations of Iraq’s declared sites that claims made by Iraq of unilateral destruction were reasonably accurate.

    https://www.armscontrol.org/print/1346

  • Alex

    Wodun: You wrote: “Alex, The Americans use of military and diplomatic power has made Earth the safest places it has ever been. You are welcome.”

    That statement is so abstruse, cynical and hypocritical , that even my laughs come not easy out of my mouth (“Ha, ha, ha,… ohh”). “Ami go home”, realization of that famous slogan would make the world a better place.

  • Edward

    Cotour, Pzatchok, Wodun, and Wayne,

    Isn’t it interesting that some people trust Wikipedia for the truth with all things controversial? Especially when they link to something that completely fails to support their claim that someone has been incorrect. Linking to the reaction of Muslim political leaders fails to address the reactions of the rest of the Muslim population. Sometimes they don’t even bother to read the Wikipedia entry for things that they state in complete ignorance, such as the “ Iraq Liberation Act”, but they pretend to know more about things than the people who actually live in the affected countries, which only results in them mischaracterizing those countries’ actions and laws, as well as attributing such laws to presidents who were not elected into office for two years after the law passed.

    Such silly, ignorant people.

    Some ignorant people point to their internet research as though it is definitive proof, after all if it’s on the internet it must be true, but then fail to research what anyone else says. We have to provide to them even the definitions of the fundamental precepts of Islam.

    Go figure.

    Strangely, they complain when we do not provided links with evidence supporting their case but then fail to provide links when they “disprove” S.O.M. Strangely, they claim that due to modern communications, knowledge can be quickly disseminated and learned, yet they throw around the most amazing BS that we quickly learn is BS.

    These guys rewrite history in order to make their incorrect points, claiming that weapons inspectors who had not been in the country for years suddenly changed their minds about Iraq’s WMDs, when those of us who were alive at the time heard from every intelligence agency in the world, including the United Nations’s, that they believed Iraq had an active WMD program. They claim that the US attacked Libya, but in the real world, the US made no attacks in that civil war, because Obama did not want to discredit his unearned and undeserved Nobel Peace Prize; however, Europe was willing to get involved; maybe in their minds, these guys conflate Europe and the US.

    But then, it is we who are considered by them to be pathetic liars.

    Can you believe these guys? (Yes, I mean that in both senses of the question.)

  • Andrew_W

    Wodun: You wrote: “Alex, The Americans use of military and diplomatic power has made Earth the safest places it has ever been. You are welcome.”

    I’m with Wodun that after WW2 and right up to the fall of the Soviet Union America’s military and economic influence on the whole did do a lot to reduce what would have been more aggressive and militaristic policies by some other nations.

    I agree and still agree that the First Gulf war was justified, that the 9/11 attacks were a despicable actions by a few Islamists that deserved to die. I think though that there have been occasions, obviously including the Second Gulf War, where US military actions have been driven more by the ego and glory seeking of the POTUS than by rational thought, and that the resulting military adventures have been bad for Americans and everyone else drawn into them.

  • Edward

    Cotour, Pzatchok, Wodun, and Wayne,
    Yet they continue to comment in complete ignorance, “thinking” something to be true, without providing links with evidence supporting their case — and despite all the provided links, presented here, with evidence supporting the opposite case — that ego and glory was the reason for the US to make the world a safer place.

    Unbelievable!

  • Andrew_W

    Edward Only a few hundred million literally cheered in the streets

    That should be easy for you to prove, show us video of hundreds of millions celebrating 9/11 in the streets.

    I didn’t say Bush was in power in ’98, just that the Iraq Liberation Act was passed in 1998.

    I didn’t say SOM was “disproved”, I was saying I was skeptical it would be as useful in an era in which proof of such deceptions could move so easily around the world.

    Edward’s obviously a bit sore that he made so many mistakes in his September 24, 2016 at 5:54 pm comment.

  • Cotour

    ” I think though that there have been occasions, obviously including the Second Gulf War, where US military actions have been driven more by the ego and glory seeking of the POTUS than by rational thought, and that the resulting military adventures have been bad for Americans and everyone else drawn into them.”

    Read about the Neocon agenda.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/11/11/the-neocon-plan-for-war-and-more-war/

    “Rational thought” in this case from the American power perspective is about the agenda that was formulated and executed by the empowered administration of the time. That is the rational, but not the rational that you mean. The rational that you identify from your perspective is based more in morality, the agenda that was formulated and implemented was based in strategy related to control of certain expanses of real estate I.E. resources / regional politics.

    The morality / moral authority to accomplish it is only a minor legal detail dealt with and justified by lawyers, a facade for public consumption. (at this level of the exercise of power)

    You are applying pedestrian morality incorrectly.

    As an illustration I ask again: Has Hillary Clinton been indicted for her plainly illegal / security breach ridden email system use and her blatant lying and withholding of her work product ? The answer is no. Why? Because there are two sets of rules, one for the political class at a certain level (which she is at) and another for the pedestrian class. Anyone else working with this information would be right now sitting in jail. This is not some mistake.

    Is George Bush jr, in jail? The answer is also no.

  • Cotour

    PS: In addition, at the level that we are discussing here the lines of tolerance for “bad behavior” can be adjusted both up and down depending on the particular empowered administration / agenda of the moment.

  • Edward

    Cotour, Pzatchok, Wodun, and Wayne,
    In context, the Koran advocates caliphate and dominance over the infidel, yet there are those who defend such a religion. Other religions advocate love of one’s neighbor, even if they belong to another religion.

    Muslims battle those of other denominations of that religion and those of other religions, yet the peoples of other religions merely argue with those of other denominations of their own religions and with those of other religions.

    Yet there are those who defend the religion of Jihad, even to the point of blaming the victims of Jihad.

    I have before compared the difference of religious books with the difference between the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights and the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    The difference in tone of these two documents of freedoms is similar to the difference in tone of the Koran relative to other religious books, scrolls, and other defining documents. The Bill of Rights presumes that rights are natural or God given, but the UDHR grants rights and maintains a clause that allows for the retraction of those rights. The Koran’s tone is one of domination and intolerance, but other religions preach tolerance and good behavior.

    Yet there are those who defend the religion of Jihad, even after the point of Robert’s post was to link to an essay that points out that Islam now attacks with impunity and thus is getting so emboldened that it is possible that, out of the gathering war clouds, it will start an all out war.

  • Garry

    In response to “And if you followed Hussein’s words at the time, it was very obvious that he wanted everyone to think he had WMD and was getting away with it against the Great Satan.”

    Andrew W wrote,

    “That may have been the perception where you are, but my recollection is that when, after the invasion there was a shortage of WMD’s discovered, it was the Bush administration that promoted the narrative that Saddam had set out to convince the world that he actually had WMD’s. Outside of the US what we saw was the US government selling a fiction to the US people as a method of shifting the blame for the invasion onto Saddam, Bush supporters in the US was happy to buy it, but not many others did.”

    No, I definitely read about Hussein’s shenanigans with inspectors before the invasion; I clearly remember discussing it with other people in the context of whether or not we should invade.

    I have never been a fan of either President Bush.

    Like I said, I think Bush set the wrong rationale for invading Iraq; the invasion would have been fully justified by the lack of cooperation with the inspections. Truth is, I think he made the decision then tried to rationalize it, but I have no problem with the rightness of the initial decision. Don’t forget that he didn’t go at it alone; Hillary Clinton, among many other Democrats, supported the decision, before they decided to use it as a wedge issue in the 2004 election and beyond.

    I agree with Cotour, in that Obama’s acts in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan arguably constitute treason.

  • Cotour

    Garry:

    I think the depth of this conversation plainly and clearly demonstrates that there really are real world consequences to elections, specifically American elections. We need to get the next election as right as we can possibly get it.

  • Garry

    Unfortunately that’s not very right. Tomorrow I’ll start to break in my hazmat suit by wearing it while I watch the first debate.

  • Alexey

    I think Iraq war is a prove that Leader always knows how to start war, but has no clue how it will end. An admirer of M. Obama started the Iraq war, destroy Iraq state in a process and ended by creation of ISIS. Guy that experienced crisis of confidence started by arming militia in Afghanistan, created Al-Qaeda in a process and ended up by killing 3k Americans. The Nobel prize laureate stated New Beginning in Cairo, destabilized Libya, Syria, Ukraine in a process and ended up ? Nuclear war? In the cards? We US nuke Russia tomorrow?

  • wayne

    Garry–
    “Iron Man Suit.”

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour: “Rational thought” in this case from the American power perspective is about the agenda that was formulated and executed by the empowered administration of the time. That is the rational, but not the rational that you mean. The rational that you identify from your perspective is based more in morality, the agenda that was formulated and implemented was based in strategy related to control of certain expanses of real estate I.E. resources / regional politics..

    I disagree, I think the policy adopted by George W Bush was irrational because the imagined end goal was unachievable given the policies he adopted subsequent to the invasion. I don’t think the fact that Bush isn’t in prison is a measure of success on his part, as prison was never a likely outcome for any sane strategies.
    Are Americans satisfied that the outcome of the 2003 invasion made the invasion worth the cost? Given that Saddam was caged and not a threat to his neighbors, I don’t think that, if SOM was the rational for the invasion, that SOM was a success. Think of the billions spent and the thousands of US lives lost, for what gain?

    Obviously there’s no certainty if the restrictions on Iraq imposed after the 1st Gulf War had been maintained long term, but it’s difficult to believe that the outcome would have been worse that what we’ve seen. Isn’t a rational policy for the US, even one based on SOM, one that achieves a long term gain for the American people?

  • Andrew_W

    On another note Putin seems to be a great admirer of SOM, and I think the result is going to be a perhaps subtle and also not so subtle distancing of many countries from Russia, which will decrease – not increase – Russian status and influence around the globe.

  • Cotour

    “I disagree, I think the policy adopted by George W Bush was irrational because the imagined end goal was unachievable given the policies he adopted subsequent to the invasion. ”

    The developed agenda’s or goals under S.O.M. are always “rational” from the point of view of those developing those agendas and goals.

    “Rational” is a subjective judgment, sometimes they work out as expected, and sometimes they don’t.

  • Edward

    Cotour, Pzatchok, Wodun, and wayne,
    Well, I got schooled. I made a mistake, but I know better, now. I said, “a few hundred million literally cheered in the streets,” and then was told — by one of those who thinks that if it is on the internet it must be true — “That should be easy for you to prove, show us video of hundreds of millions celebrating 9/11 in the streets.

    It turns out that I was wrong. It turns out that not only do they think that if it is on the internet it must be true, but they also think that if it isn’t on the internet it cannot be true. There is no video of a crowd of hundreds of millions of Muslims celebrating 9/11, because they did not get together in one large group in order to celebrate. Instead, they spontaneously celebrated wherever they were, rather than getting together in a preplanned way, like the hundreds of millions who regularly celebrate New Years in Times Square. Oh, that’s right; Times Square does not fit that many people.

    So now the correct way to characterize these guys is along the lines of ‘they think that if it is on the internet it must be true, and they think that if it isn’t on the internet it doesn’t exist or it isn’t true.’

    I had heard this kind of thing before, but I had no idea that people actually believed such tripe about the internet. My mistake. I know better, now.

    Garry pointed out that someone wrote: “shifting the blame for the invasion onto Saddam

    As Garry replied, it was not shifting the blame onto Hussein, but I remember that it was the UN resolution 1441. (Oh, and I looked it up on the internet, too, so it must be true.) The revisionist history is astounding. The actual, true history does not tell the story these guys like, so they make up their own story, thinking that no one will remember or look it up.

  • Cotour

    You see, Edward, you do have more in common with Trump than you thought. Trump said the same exact thing that you did.

  • Andrew_W

    Edward, I’m not expecting you to come up with a video of your few hundred million literally cheering all in one place, I’m prepared to accept if it’s 50,000 here, 20,000 there, so if their spread over 1000 or so locations that’s fine.

    And before you start off on your “you aren’t even bothered to look it up on your own. Perhaps because you already know that it disproves your point” rant, I know damn well that there were just a few brief instances of celebrating, in Beirut and 2 or 3 other places by groups of a dozen or so. Offensive, but about a millionth of what you claim.

  • Cotour

    I will start you off , Edward:

    https://youtu.be/G-p1LEBAujE

    https://youtu.be/9_TwEaF5Jh0

    https://youtu.be/J-VKu6ZRXG4

    https://youtu.be/WOSHX4VREV8

    https://youtu.be/2JeuUH5JjQA

    https://youtu.be/x2m338cRXRM This guy actually explains what Andrew W refuses to either see or admit.

    Andrew W sees only his subjective perspective and promotes Islam. The problem with that perspective is that objective observation indicates exactly the opposite. Islam is counter to the Constitution 180 degrees.

    The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

  • Edward

    Thanks, Cotour, but I am not about to hunt for the thousand different videos that are now demanded. Not only is it a waste of time, because we all know that Andrew is purposefully causing trouble — no amount of evidence will ever satisfy him — but Robert would have to moderate the thousand videos, and we all appreciate that he spends his time on much more productive endeavors than trying to satisfy the insatiable troll.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour, I said “I know damn well that there were just a few brief instances of celebrating, in Beirut and 2 or 3 other places by groups of a dozen or so.”

    Which is what your collection of videos shows; East Jerusalem, Beirut, and some teens in NJ.

    objective observation indicates exactly the opposite.

    Objective observation is what actually happens throughout the whole world, not selecting a few hot spots, three million Muslims in America vs a half dozen Islamist terror incidents a year, tens of millions of Muslims living in Europe, again only a few Islamist terror incidents a year. It’s the same the world over, the incidence of attacks by Muslims on other people outside of war zones is not the norm, it remains the very highly publicized exception.

    Christian nations are no more peaceful than Muslim nations, since 2001 there have been over 200,000 intentional homicides in the US, the chances of being killed by a Islamist terrorist are about one one thousandth that of being killed in an everyday (literally) homicide.

  • Edward

    As I said, Cotour, insatiable.

  • Cotour

    Andrew W:

    This guy explains Islam in the way that most people in America and on this web site understand and view Islam and the Koran.

    https://youtu.be/x2m338cRXRM

    No matter what you say about how wonderful Islam and the Koran is no one here or over most of America will ever agree with you. Why? Because Islam is, in the terms that most reasonable Americans understand it, an existential threat to our way of life, I.E. the Constitution.

    You and the people who think like you in the world are a threat to our freedom and in fact the freedom in the entire world (whether you understand that or not). You must face that fact.

    So live your life and embrace what you want to embrace, but America and Americans will not be joining you.
    (The ones with any common sense and knowledge about their Constitution anyway)

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    Don’t you think it interesting that there are those who think that they are experts of the United States despite being across the Pacific? I wonder what they would think if we started telling them all about their own countrymen, especially stuff that we read on the internet (because if it is on the internet, it must be truer than their own personal experiences).

    Now he wants us to accept Islam’s Jihad, because it isn’t as bad as that evil, violent Christianity, whose good book says, ‘go ahead, sinners, and throw that first stone, and I will join in, because murder and domination are what we Christians are all about.’ Oops. That was Islam’s bad book. Christianity’s good book says the opposite, telling its followers to not throw stones in violence. But, not every one in “Christian nations” obeys the good book — especially not those who follow the religion of Jihad.

    However, there are supposedly 200,000 intentional homicides, in the US, during which the evil, Christian-Jihadists exclaim “Allahu Akbar!”*, and — according to the trolls — that is supposed to make it acceptable for Muslims to wage mass murder in every Christian and non-Christian country in the world, because — again, according to the trolls, Islam is what the US Constitution is all about. Bombs in New York? Stabbings in Minnesota? They think we shouldn’t be crabbing about it but be accepting of these murderous ways.

    Then again, they haven’t lost any fellow alma mater alumni to terrorists, so they just don’t care in the least bit that terrorists actually and in reality kill people.

    What a bizarre and twisted view of the world these guys have. Cotour, they are unwilling to change their twisted view of reality in order to face the facts on the ground, yet they have not taken any Islamic refugees into their own homes, so they have no first hand idea of the reality of the situation, but they may be too frightened to take in any of these refugees (secretly knowing what could happen to them if they fail to follow the Koran, and its Sharia derivative, in their own homes).

    * Loosely translated as, “I saw Allah in a bar in Alaska, and I’m pissed off that He gets to drink alcohol, but I’m stuck drinking these 72 virgin Cuba Libres. Somehow I had a different vision of the virgins I was supposed to get for dying in this Jihad attack.’

  • Andrew_W

    in the terms that most reasonable Americans understand it, an existential threat to our way of life, I.E. the Constitution.

    Despite the fact that that perception is based on the much publicized exception rather than the norm?

    Obviously you’re set in your opinion and I’m set in mine, each believing their opinion has a better basis in reality, but here’s an analogy for your consideration. America is a violent country, it has a higher homicide rate than any other Western country, typically 5 times higher, Americans love their guns, many utterly refuse any gun control and claim gun ownership as a “right”.

    A reasonable person (using your definition of “reasonable”) looking at America from afar might conclude that Americans should not be allowed into other countries, thinking that they’re obviously too prone to violence. What such a person would be missing is that Human Beings are individuals, (an understanding that’s at the core of libertarianism, that conservatives recognize, but only selectively) Americans traveling and living overseas are capable of accepting and living under the laws of other lands despite those laws being in conflict with their “rights”, and that Americans are individuals, some relatively small groups are responsible for most of the violence that exists in America, and other countries have every right to screen out those Americans they consider to be a threat.

    Only fools stereotype all Americans as reflective of the few that cause most of the harm.

  • Cotour

    “Only fools stereotype all Americans as reflective of the few that cause most of the harm.”

    I encourage other country’s to profile and reject people who offend their sensibilities who want to enter.

    Homicide numbers do not define what America is about, they are what they are. Let me point something out to you that you may find obnoxious. Your life, and your ability to form your opinions in New Zealand is a direct result of America and what formulates it. As a matter of fact that applies to most country’s that enjoy some level of freedom and prosperity.

    (remember, it was the Islamist’s / Muslim Brotherhood who aligned with Hitler, that aliance says everything that needs to be said ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world

    So your opinion and many other Liberal / Leftist / Libertarian’s (they are all IMO similar if not the same or lead to the same ends) and justifications on this is issue of whether Islam and Muslims should be considered “equal” in their belief system related to American / Constitutional belief system is a moot argument. They are not.

    Sometimes some things should not be mixed and these are two of them for very good reasons.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    Some “experts” are just so clueless.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE (6 minutes)

    This year’s list:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
    (At least, Cotour, we Americans are four times greater than those isolated New Zealanders. How many Jihadists did they take in as refugees?)

    But how does anyone argue with the internet-know-it-all who does not fact check his own facts (not entitled to his own facts, just his own opinions) with his favorite Wikipedia?

    Maybe it’s not the guns. Maybe it’s the Jihadis holding the guns.

  • Garry

    A better analogy would be the countless American guns owners who live in a foreign country, go to a place with a lot of people, shoot off their guns, and yell “Second Amendment Baby!”

    Where are the videos showing all those guys?

  • Andrew_W

    Edward, you’ve missed a couple of my points, I was talking about perception, America is seen as a violent country (compared to other Western nations, in terms of homicides, it is) I’m not arguing it’s guns that kill people, not people that kill people, so your Whittle video isn’t relevant to my point, which is that looking at such statistics and judging Americans by them isn’t reasonable and that nor is it reasonable to judge Muslims by the action of Islamists.

    “How many Jihadists did they take in as refugees?”

    We’re not silly enough to take in jihadists (those believing it necessary to fight against non-Muslims) we’re taking in a modest number of Muslim refugees, a lot of Kiwi’s think we should take quite a few more.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour, you’re doing the same thing again. Was Islam united in supporting Nazism? No, were some Western countries supporting Nazism? Obviously yes. Were some Americans supporters of Nazism? Yes. Should we lump the rest of America, or the rest of Islam in with the Nazi supporters? No. Are countries and peoples that supported Nazism back then allowed to not support it today? Yep.

  • Cotour

    And you want them to come to your country and establish their Islamic culture in New Zealand, right?

  • Cotour

    This is a bit of an aside but an extension of your line of questioning:

    1. Did president Obama actively support The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/3/inside-the-ring-muslim-brotherhood-has-obamas-secr/

    2. Is Huma Abadin the daughter of high level Muslim Brotherhood adherents?

    http://www.theimproper.com/139743/hillary-clinton-aide-huma-abedin-edited-pro-sharia-radical-muslim-magazine-12-years/

    3. Was Huma Abadin the editor of a Islamic magazine?

    4. Is the White House populated with Marxists?

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/9582-self-avowed-muslim-marxist-says-white-house-tied-to-muslim-brotherhood

    Like I have stated before your argument is basically moot here, there will come a time when these facts that Americans find before them must be changed. This is even for your own good even though you are unable to understand it Andrew W.

  • Edward

    Garry,
    You have a good point about that analogy. In fact, we could add to that analogy all the Americans who go to foreign countries and demand to live under American law, not local law. We also insist upon American courts, not local courts, like the American courts in Britain. No wonder everyone wants we evil Yanks to go home, going into other countries and demanding to our very own and separate rights. Then we start telling women and girls what to wear at the beach and swimming pool. What audacity, we Americans have, imposing our culture upon those who take us in as guests and refugees — they have to adapt to our desires. Mwahaha!

    Oh, that’s right. Those are Sharia courts in Britain, not American courts, and it’s Muslims telling women how to dress and raping them if they don’t dress right. Apparently, we well-armed Americans are raised differently than those Muslims are.

  • Cotour

    Edward, I am going to have to put a “Trigger” warning on your statements.

    http://www.mrctv.org/blog/hofstra-university-provides-trigger-warning-presidential-debate

    Everyone who needs therapy after reading Edwards upsetting words are directed to your county mental health professionals pro bono counseling services.

    What the FK have we become? What are our highest levels of education teaching the youth in our country when they think that they are unable to hear actual opposing opinions that may become heated?

    Like I said, things must be changed because where we are going is not a good place.

  • Andrew_W

    And you want them to come to your country and establish their Islamic culture in New Zealand, right?

    New Zealand is becoming more ethnically and culturally diverse, which I think is a good thing, I’d hate to live in a inward facing xenophobic nation.

  • Cotour

    America is obviously not xenophobic, I have plainly stated that everyone is welcome as established by actual evidence, as long as you are coming here to become an American and not coming here to bring here what you are running from there, I.E. Islam and Sharia.

    Its even ridiculous that I even have to state that.

    THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT. And there is no right of anyone in the world to come to America, absolutely none. Just like there is no right for any American to migrate to any other country.

    In time as Islams establishes itself ad grows I look forward to you expressing your love and tolerance of it. Get ready, it you, a bunch of sheep and Islam. Sounds wonderful and fairy tale like.

    Here, look forward at your future. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3473167/posts

    Get comfortable with it. ( hope you do not have any daughters)

  • Andrew_W

    Where does the concept of the “four stages of Islamic conquest” originate? Is it written down in Islamic scripture somewhere, or is it the product of a conservative anti Islam think tank, perhaps borrowed from “the four stages of communist takeover”?

    https://www.google.co.nz/search?client=opera&q=four+stages+of+communist+takeover&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

  • Cotour

    Islam, Communism, no difference from my point of view. Do you see a difference?

    Both ideologies are authoritarian and about the collective and not about the individual. The Constitution is about the individual and not about the collective.

    Its about time that you came to understand these things, no?

    Some things can not be reconciled, and we recognize that, embrace reality, and we move on. If you want to live like that you live like that, I reject that. That is how simple this conversation is.

  • Andrew_W

    Communism failed because it was “about the collective and not about the individual”, Islam is no more about the collective than Christianity is, if it were as about the collective as you believe it will also fail, it’s Human nature to rebel against unjust oppression, Islam is not the oppressive ideology you imagine.

  • Cotour

    Islam has failed, exactly because of its similarities to communism.

    Islam’s patriarchal model of operation has kept its adherents in the middle ages for the most part. If it were not for Western influences they would still be riding camels and living in the desert in tents.

    What is the Muslim / Islam issue? Attempting to reconcile their belief system, Islam, and Western culture. This is why the cultures are clashing because Islam is much like Communism. They are both regressive and oppressive, the exact opposite of the Constitution which is the basis for most of the progress the the last 200 or so years.

    Because you are only able to see things from your point of view and reject all other reasonable interpretations you are blind. You only see what you want to see.

  • Cotour

    Some other first hand commentary:

    https://youtu.be/ra9QQ58b7JY The punishments of Islam.

    https://youtu.be/r7OYRknGgEc The patriarchal brain washing of Islam.

  • Andrew_W

    Because you are only able to see things from your point of view and reject all other reasonable interpretations you are blind. You only see what you want to see.

    Ditto.

  • Cotour

    I have written this observation before and I will repeat it again.

    Islam exists closer to human DNA, that is it is based in a model where male domination is paramount. And while some (including me) may think that a good idea now and again :) we ultimately understand that that model is a very dark, counter productive and even evil model in many ways.

    Western culture has developed past that initial male dominated cultural model to an intellectual interpretation of a culture where women are seen as equal both before the law and equal in having a say in determining their own life trajectory. And in this model we all find freedom and light.

    And unfortunately this “equal” Western model eventually morphs into this irrational and politically correct Liberal / Leftist abomination that we find ourselves experiencing today. But that is another story.

    And when the patriarchal culture conveniently develops a “religion” which codifies into its rules of operation the subjugation of women, and their “religion” becomes the foundation of their legal system all in one then this fact becomes the point at which one cultural model must change if it wants to be accepted by the other culture.

    These fundamental differences are irreconcilable and will remain so until that transformation.

  • Cotour

    Andrew W:

    But I am presenting you with actual evidence.

    Am I to assume that you accept my interpretation? If so, then very well.

  • Andrew_W

    Am I to assume that you accept my interpretation? If so, then very well.

    Nope, I don’t know where you got that idea.

    Western culture has developed past that initial male dominated cultural model to an intellectual interpretation of a culture where women are seen as equal both before the law and equal in having a say in determining their own life trajectory. And in this model we all find freedom and light.

    In Humans the two genders are optimized for traditional gender roles, but Humans are adaptable, our DNA, not “intellectual interpretation of a culture” allows us to perform non biological tasks usually performed by the opposite gender, again, your impression of strict gender roles in Islam is misguided, Muslim women can become presidents, Muslim men can cook dinner and change nappies.

    Cultures less technologically advanced than Islam cultures have been are the places you’ll find the gender roles more rigidly adhered to.

    Islam’s patriarchal model of operation has kept its adherents in the middle ages for the most part.

    Muslim countries are at a similar level of wealth, technology, and gender equality as many other cultures around the world: Latin America, India, Indochina, Africa and China. Presumably you’ve got plenty of reasons as to why these other cultures are inferior to your own.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour
    September 27, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    Regarding your first video, Why I Left Islam & Goodbye, His reasons for leaving Islam apply equally to those of us who’ve abandoned Christianity, which also preaches God burning people in Hell, same God, same punishment.

    Your second video relates only and entirely to the culture in Saudi Arabia, it’s unbelievable that you fail to understand that the lady was criticizing SA, and only SA, and that her criticisms do not apply to the rest of the Muslim world. You’re doing what Trump did in suggesting that the mother of the slain Muslim US serviceman was forbidden from speaking by her faith. It was total nonsense, as is your inference that the SA culture applies to Islam.

  • Andrew_W

    Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

    Obviously Christianity must always be a Patriarchal religion. (Don’t make me go find other passages in the Bible advocating patriarchy, that was tame compared to other teachings of patriarchy in the New Testament).

  • Garry

    Andrew W wrote, “your impression of strict gender roles in Islam is misguided, Muslim women can become presidents, Muslim men can cook dinner and change nappies.”

    Have you actually met Muslims, and if you have, have you traveled to their countries and observed them?

    I have met Muslims who will do what is called “women’s work, and I acknowledge that they do exist. I have also met Muslims in the US military who refused to clean their rooms because that was women’s work! I have seen Muslim women in the US and abroad who are very careful to follow their husbands from behind while showing only their eyes, while the husband, apparently oblivious to his wife (wives), walks more quickly than she can comfortably walk.

    One female Muslim president (Bhutto, who was eventually assassinated) does not a trend make (I may be missing others). With the coup in Pakistan, it’s doubtful that another female will get a chance to be president there in the foreseeable future.

    Saudi Arabia is among the strictest in the Muslim world, but is not alone, especially in the wake of relatively recent events. See Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, events in Nigeria, and others. Yes, there are variations, but many countries have appalling customs when it comes to women. And that’s not counting honor killings that occur among Muslim immigrants in western countries.

    There’s not a simple solution; most of the women who are oppressed by wearing burkas in 40C (and hotter) weather would be appalled at the idea of dressing differently; many of the women in Saudi Arabia would be appalled at the idea of driving, or leaving their homes unaccompanied by their husbands or fathers.

    Not all Muslims are extremist, in terms of oppressive customs or violence, but even if it’s 1% (I think it’s much higher), the total is huge.

    There is truth in what you say about not all Muslims begin extremist, but you seem to say that their numbers are negligible, which is some quality trolling.

  • wayne

    Andrew_W wrote, in part:
    “In Humans the two genders are optimized for traditional gender roles, but Humans are adaptable, our DNA, not “intellectual interpretation of a culture” allows us to perform non biological tasks usually performed by the opposite gender…”

    What, in the hell, are you talking about? Strike that– I don’t really want to know, ‘cuz you don’t what the heck you are talking about either, except to defend & apologize away crazy religious behavior, while concurrently attacking Western Judeo-Christian heritage.

    Psycho-Babble, and not even good psycho-babble, just pure plain ordinary babble.

    Endless, non-stop, apologizing & explaining away.

    Loki speech,
    (“There are always men like you…”)
    https://youtu.be/dapip0EHYMI

  • Cotour

    Andrew W:

    I have given you my interpretation related to my observations concerning the differences between the Koran / Islam and the Judaeo / Christian based cultures. My reasonable conclusion is that they are fundamentally sooo different that they should not be mixed in the way that our Western politicians feel they need to mix them.

    To me these forced actions whether intended to somehow promote peace, or political correctness, or devise some kind of a One World Government or to just cause confusion and chaos in the world so as to makes themselves somehow more relevant is a dangerous thing. And it is much more dangerous for the Western cultures rather than the Eastern cultures. So I reject it, and your argument.

    In this forced mixing agenda the risks to the West are much, much greater given the basic patriarchal tenets of Islam to conquer and spread Islam throughout the world. These misguided agendas and arguments may at some level be done with the “best” intents (which I do not believe), but they are just that, misguided at the minimum and from the Western leadership point of view is just plain treasonous.

    So we can go head to head presenting evidence to support our points of view but like I have stated earlier it does not matter to me, you can never sell what your selling to me. So to me there is no intellectual justification that you can come up with that will convince me otherwise. Islam’s ultimate intent is to dominate and the West has much, much more to lose than the East.

    So your, I assume compassionate Atheist argument and “reasonable”, Liberal interpretation of the situation to me promotes irrational thinking of the existential threat kind. So you continue to welcome those who would entirely over time (and in Islam they have plenty of time) take over your country is a form of cultural suicide committed by the naive, the suicidal, the scared or the weak. Choose one.

    Lets finally look at it by the numbers.

    https://youtu.be/6-3X5hIFXYU

    This video was made in 2008 and it pretty clearly lays out what is happening both by the numbers and in the media. So while the West has become very successful through its pursuit of the intellectual interpretation of how people should live it turns out that as things become better and better procreation declines as people’s lives become more comfortable.

    In our success we appear to be our own worst enemy’s. And I still reject your argument (not that in time it seems to matter)

  • Cotour

    And here we have the subtle (maybe not so subtle) growing media transformation:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/noor-tagouri-playboy-hijab_us_57eb3777e4b0c2407cda7001?section=&

    Slowly the water warms. What will become of America?

    Can nationalism stop out this trend?

    Or is it just a matter of time?

  • Cotour

    Stepping back, are we witnessing the accidental transformation / reformation of Islam?

    Islam left on its own is unable to transform itself, is the forced adaptation of Western ideology the catalyst that can accomplish what is seen to be the impossible?

    This, if that is in fact what is underway IMO is a dangerous social experiment / cultural evolution with unknown and unknowable results.

  • Garry

    Parts of Islam are scared to death that western culture will transform theirs. With the Internet and other advances in communications, it becomes more and more plausible, which makes us more and more of a threat.

    During the Gulf War we (US servicemen and women) had to make lots of accommodations, which is fine, as we have to abide by the laws of our host nations (much as expats have to do). No alcohol. No pornography, which extended to any magazine (such as bodybuilding magazines) that showed any skin at all, male or female. The host nations wanted to minimize the risk of their culture being infected with ours.

    I saw some of the distortions that some of their prohibitions cause. One day, I took advantage of a rare port visit by going to a book store. Three local young men seemed fascinated by a large book, and looked like they were doing something forbidden. I gradually made my way over to them, and discovered they were looking at a book (medical?) with photos of parts of corpses. They were getting their jollies over seeing nude lady parts among the parts of corpses! What does that do to their perception of women’s bodies, and how much less healthy would looking at Playboy magazine be?

    Some Muslims see the threat of corruption by western culture to be an existentialist threat, and perhaps it is.

    Under those extreme circumstances, I’m with Cotour; it’s better that some elements of our cultures don’t mix at all.

  • Cotour

    Thanks for the first hand feed back Garry.

    I also see the powerful results of our Western thought in the form of our Constitution and capitalism as a kind of “infection” that once you become aware of it / exposed to it and the individual freedom, material comforts and many advances and opportunities that it offers it is only a matter of time before the people, all people, must have it.

    But this too has its costs and we are moving through those costs right now. Things like this:

    http://www.mrctv.org/blog/hofstra-university-provides-trigger-warning-presidential-debate

    The infantilization of the youth of America.

  • Wayne, and everyone: You might have noticed that I have not wasted any of my valuable time recently trying to discuss anything with our resident leftist, Andrew_W. It is pointless, since it is clear that it is impossible for him to even consider any evidence contrary to his own conclusions.

    However, I want to note once again certain patterns. Not only is he willfully blind to any data that might disprove his conclusions, he continues to take positions that make him a consistent apologist for the worst tyrants and oppressors of the 21st century. It is instructive to note this, because it helps explain why Western civilization is struggling. Too many educated people are doing what Andrew_W does, and thus oppression is allowed to grow.

    Or to put it another way, for evil to flourish good men need only do nothing. Andrew_W is providing us a classic example of this.

  • Cotour

    Our success is our downfall.

    But I think this has been a worthwhile and illuminating exercise.

  • wayne

    Could not have summarized it any better myself.

  • Garry

    Cotour, keep in mind it’s very limited first-hand feedback from 25 years ago. There are many who can provide something more up to date and much more extensive.

    I read an interesting article in recent years about difficulties servicemen had in Iraq. Some in Iraq have antiquated ideas of post-bowel movement hygiene, to the extent that the sinks become nightmares (use your imagination). Naturally, the American servicemen don’t tolerate this, so they had separate bathrooms.

    With the mixing of people, before long, a lot of Iraqis got sick (when they keep to the local areas they have immunity to the local bacteria), but the Americans didn’t. Being conditioned by living under Hussein for decades, some Iraqis automatically assumed that the Americans were poisoning them, after all, none of the Americans were getting sick!

    So efforts began to teach basic hygiene, which usually failed and was seen as an attempt to undermine culture.

    Of course, it doesn’t happen exactly like this every time, and I don’t think it’s an Islam thing as much as an element of local culture, but it illustrates some of the pitfalls of mixing cultures that are very different.

  • Andrew_W

    Cotour, here’s a list of fertility rates by country, you’ll notice that no country has the fertility rate of 8.1, the figure claimed in the video, also there are several Muslim countries with fertility rates below replacement (including Iran). Fertility rates have more to do with education and wealth than religion and if the rich countries want more babies of their own culture they should produce them, your video is trying to blame Islam for low fertility rates in developed countries, which doesn’t make sense to me.

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

  • Cotour

    “your video is trying to blame Islam for low fertility rates in developed countries, which doesn’t make sense to me.”

    That is absolutely NOT what my observation / point or the video was about, this is what I said.

    “So while the West has become very successful through its pursuit of the intellectual interpretation of how people should live it turns out that as things become better and better procreation declines as people’s lives become more comfortable.”

    And the video is just running observable / measurable trends and representing it through reasonably projectable numbers.

    Meaning that as a culture develops and becomes more and more successful it no longer needs the agrarian family model that includes many offspring, the purpose of which is for available man power and security in old age. The intellectual transformation (rejecting patriarchy and religion / law model) results in higher technology, a more comfortable life and many social safety nets and other ways of making a living / surviving. In other words people have more time to think when they no longer have to think about basic survival.

    Islam has nothing to do with the declining fertility rate in the West. How you read what I wrote and came to that conclusion about what I actually said is an indicator that you either are ignorant, and that is refuted by your ability to write. So that leaves you either refuse to properly interpret what others who oppose you write in order to shamelessly promote your agenda or ……………..what? Now that does not make sense.

    What I wrote is plain as day.

  • Cotour

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

    Your data is just a more updated version (2013 to 2015) of the projected information and it pretty closely correlates to the 2008 video. It might not be 8 but its pretty close.

    As a matter of fact the charts very clearly indicate the level of development from the third world to the first. The less developed with the most procreation per capita (which clearly includes Islamic country’s) and the more developed with the least procreation per capita.

    Plane as day.

  • Phill O

    Garry
    September 28, 2016 at 9:04 am

    Your ideas are sound (IMO) and this train of thought makes me avoid anything HALAL certified. There is a beef processing plant in Brooks Alberta. They use much foreign labor. There is great difficulty in trying to teach proper hygiene to Somalis etc. Now the Japanese plant in Alberta (not sure where) have higher pay (and Japaneses workers) and the product goes to Japan only. Much better food safety!

    Now, considering my past experience in food safety, food quality and quality assurance, you can decide if my opinion is worth listening too.

  • wayne

    Cotour– you are doing a good job explaining your over-all point. (He’s just trying to bait you, and I know you know that…) You & I differ on some stuff (large & small), but on this whole topic, I’m standing right next to you.

    Garry– as always, very reasonable opinions delivered in a reasoned manner, and nothing beats on-the-ground-experience, no matter how anecdotal it might be.

    Anecdotally myself– my best friend’s wife, –she can trace her Persian lineage back about 200+ years and her elderly mother currently lives in a suburb of Tehran. She visits about once a year and is en-route to London & Tehran, as I type.
    I know everything I need to know, as to how she is treated, how she must behave, and how her mother actually lives, in the “Islamic Republic.” It’s not a pretty picture she paints to me.

  • Garry

    Phill O, Your opinion is definitely worth listening to. I’d never want to be a health inspector; I would probably never want to eat again.

    Having lived in Japan for 4 years (and edited all sorts of translations from there for 20 years, including quite a few on sanitation), I have no doubt that the Japanese plant is among the cleanest in the world.

    I confess that when in port in Oman and UAE during the Gulf War, I disregarded advice from my command and the embassy rep who gave us briefings, and I ate some of the best street food I’ve ever had, with no ill effects.

    I never saw battle, but expected that I might. I figured if I was willing to risk my life on the battlefield for my comrades, they wouldn’t begrudge me for risking my life and health for the chance of eating the only non-Navy food I had access to in 8 months.

    I saw many other Marines and sailors eating street food at sketchy places, and as far as I know nobody suffered any ill effects (other than from excess alcohol consumption in UAE)

  • Edward

    wayne replied to a troll: “What, in the hell, are you talking about? Strike that– I don’t really want to know, ‘cuz you don’t what the heck you are talking about either”

    He also didn’t know Christianity very well, thinking that its God is the same as Islam’s Allah, and needing to “find” — rather than recite — passages from the bible. Islamic teachings are very different than Christian teachings, but the trolls refuse to acknowledge this, as their world view is badly tainted by socialist tripe. All religions are not born equal, some preach evil (e.g. human sacrifice) rather than good (e.g. love thy neighbor). That he does not understand the religions he talks about is indicative of the other things that he likewise has not bothered to learn about – except for a couple of internet searches so that he can pretend to have some modicum of knowledge.

    What a tool he is.

    Coutour,
    You are the victim if the troll’s redirection techniques when his points turn out to be unsupportable.

    Robert’s comment is generous: “Or to put it another way, for evil to flourish good men need only do nothing. Andrew_W is providing us a classic example of this.

    I do not believe that Andrew_W is one of the ones we should be worried does nothing. I have already abandoned hope that he can become one of the ones who needs to do the right thing, as he cannot distinguish good from evil, right from wrong, science from ignorant belief, or Christianity from Islam (having the same reason for abandoning Christianity as the guy in the video for leaving Islam).

    He is irretrievably lost, and we have to turn our energies to useful action against evil. By being distracted by the hopeless, we risk accidentally allowing evil to flourish.

  • Cotour

    Victim” ?

    I do not know what conversation that you have been reading but I believe that my well laid out and reasoned argument has forced him to more clearly reveal just how unsupportable his argument actually is. No yelling, no screaming.

    Victim? Hardly.

  • Edward

    I believe that my well laid out and reasoned argument has forced him to more clearly reveal just how unsupportable his argument actually is.

    OK. I misjudged the objective. Hardly a victim after all.

  • wayne

    Time for a humor break….
    Capt. Queeg & that nasty business with the missing strawberries…
    https://youtu.be/4AznmrRZsRQ

  • Cotour

    I must admit, as time goes on I understand you less and less.

    How about that Ted Cruz endorsement?

  • wayne

    Cotour– no problem, (the Bogart clip rightly belonged further ‘up’ in this thread.)

    Ted Cruz–not totally unexpected, at least not from me. He never did, want to burn the house down. (Mitch/Ryan run the show and they likely will continue, whomever gets elected.) I’ve read his actual statements & don’t see any inherent conflict. He’s a politician… & reliably Conservative, that’s what matters to me.
    You know I pulled the trigger in my mind. Still don’t like it, at all. As Garry remarked, “haz-mat suit required.” It is what it has become. I know, who I am against.

    Glenn Beck (whom I like & pay for his channel) is having an existential crisis over it.
    Mark Levin (whom I like & pay for his channel) continues to push a Conservative Agenda.
    I’m in the middle somewhere, and that’s grossly under explaining.

    I have always maintained, we didn’t get to this point overnight & one election will not fix it.
    Hillary would definitely destroy us, 100%.
    DJT would morph us into “something” that is still, not-quite-right, to be kind.

    I remain highly concerned for the down ballot, and an Article 5 Convention of the States.
    (They just held a practice Convention last weekend. Only the States can start to fix this mess we are in & we are within striking distance.)

  • Cotour

    Wayne:

    This comment:

    I must admit, as time goes on I understand you less and less. How about that Ted Cruz endorsement?

    Was directed at Edward, who is always subjective, except when in the engineering seat, but always appreciate your take.

  • Steve Earle

    Wayne said:
    “..Glenn Beck (whom I like & pay for his channel) is having an existential crisis over it.
    Mark Levin (whom I like & pay for his channel) continues to push a Conservative Agenda.
    I’m in the middle somewhere, and that’s grossly under explaining…”

    I also used to pay for Glenn Beck’s website/channel, but I stopped when he started to become obsessed with the NeverTrump movement. Even Mark Levin has admitted he will vote for the Donald!

    And now for Beck to call out Ted Cruz of all people just shows to me that he has gone off the deep end. How many others would have done what he did at the convention?

    I still occasionally listen to Beck on XM radio, but I refuse to directly pay to support him anymore when he is so willingly blind to what is going on in the real world.

    If Hillary wins by a thin margin, Beck can congratulate himself for helping make it happen. I wonder if he will also then take responsibility for enabling what happens in the next 4 to 8 years.

    So, like so many others, I will go into the booth and do what is necessary in this time, this place.

  • Phill O

    I see the point of all your ruminations! I really causes me to re-examine my priorities in Canadian elections. We have, in fact, already voted a “Hillary” type candidate in federally, and Bernie Sanders provincially.

    I flipped FOX on yesterday to get a feel for happenings. What do I see but Bernie campaigning with Hillary. She has been forced so far to the left, I sure hope it wakes more people up!

    NH forever

  • wayne

    Steve Earle-
    I hear you, all around. Beck is however, doing a good job with Culture-issues, but he thought Cruz was George Washington reincarnated, something like that. (That’s major league shorthand, I don’t want to attack Beck, as-such, and I continue to support him.) His religious bent is not-my-bag, but I do understand from where he comes and fully empathize with the cause, but not to the extent he appears to be internalizing it.
    (He has a place to escape-to, I don’t. I’m going to have to stand or fall right on my little 3/4 acre lot.)
    Always (and forever) will march with Levin, although he doesn’t issue my marching-orders.
    (and these “endorsements” for the General election don’t really mean a whole lot, it’s an Electoral College thing now….)

    Yeah… “it is what it has become,” and “I know who I am voting against.” (It’s going to take an Iron Man Suit for me…)
    Far more concerned with the down-ballot, and getting rid of Mitch/Ryan. No matter who wins however, one election won’t fix this mess.
    One election won’t even scratch the surface.

    (We need to pull the Article 5 “emergency tyranny escape-hatch,” right now. It’s the ONLY legal and NON-Violent way to reign these clowns in. If that fails, then I know exactly where we are headed, and it won’t be pretty. The part about “serving on my knee’s,” well…. I didn’t sign up for any of that, and I will resist it, always and forever.

    Cotour– yar… sorry to interject myself at an inopportune time. (I didn’t mean to imply you were acting all Captain Queeg on us. And I’ll just leave it at that…)

    Edward– I greatly (greatly) empathize with all your thoughts & I understand exactly from where you come. (Do what YOU think is right, election-wise, no matter what. You’ll get no flak from me over it.)

    As Mr. Z, and Levin, among others (handfuls) have opined– we need to keep up Conservative pressure on DJT and try to make sure he has “enough” correct thinkers surrounding him.
    No lock-step acquiescence– if he makes it, –he works for us,– and we need to make sure we are represented at the table.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “Was directed at Edward, who is always subjective, except when in the engineering seat, but always appreciate your take.

    I do not understand the question. What do you mean by, “How about that Ted Cruz endorsement?

    Are you bragging about it or do you dislike the way it was stated or …? wayne thinks it was “not totally unexpected,” but I do not understand why it would be unexpected at all.

    Wayne,
    You wrote: “we need to keep up Conservative pressure on DJT and try to make sure he has ‘enough’ correct thinkers surrounding him.

    It is too bad that he is not a correct thinker himself. There is no reason to believe that he will suddenly start listening to people who want him to go against his nature. It is like teaching a 70-year-old dog to say “meow.”

  • pzatchok

    http://www.voanews.com/a/indonesia-aceh-province-plans-to-expand-sharia-law/2556765.html

    http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-indonesia-caning-20160416-story.html

    One of the more open and enlightened Muslim nations is slowly being turned to Sharia law.
    First separatist (terrorists) gained control of this one province and turned it to Sharia, How long until the next ones fall?

Leave a Reply

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