>> ^Yogi:

>> ^A10anis:

I made my point in my first comment. I explained my point to you - as you needed it explaining- in my second. You are an idiot. I will not respond again.

Hey don't be a jerk, we're all friends here.

Hey, read his nonsense, If you aren't one yourself, you will easily identify who is the jerk "friend."

>> ^A10anis:


I made my point in my first comment. I explained my point to you - as you needed it explaining- in my second. You are an idiot. I will not respond again.


Hey don't be a jerk, we're all friends here.

>> ^messenger:

@A10anis
You suggest at the end of your first comment that Shure and Dore think Islam is moderate. But they don't say that. All your arguments against Islam are word for word equally applicable to Christianity as well.
As for your defence of Christianity, first, I don't know what the term is, but posing rhetorical questions, the answers to which don't conclude anything is a false argument. Like, I can make a false argument in the same way by asking, "When was the last time a Muslim burned a black man on a cross? When was the last time Muslims conducted witch hunts or a Spanish Inquisition?" It sounds like the answers must be conclusive, but they're meaningless. If you want to say something, just say it.
Second, using the craziest of the sickest crazies to exemplify Islam is like using the KKK and the hick communities they draw from to exemplify the western civilization. It's bullshit. Most Muslims just go about doing their thing and don't give a shit what other people think, and certainly don't advocate killing non-believers. And the ones who do, it's not because they're Muslim: it's because the U.S. installed or supported religious dictatorial leaders. What do you think are the three most batshit crazy Islamic countries? I bet the U.S. created or supported the creation of their non-democratic power structure. Am I right? Lack of democracy is the difference, not the text of the religion. Give Muslims democracy and they'll chill out because democracy is better than any religion.
You offered to clarify though. You said you agree with everything else Dooley said besides those two statements, right? So, can you clarify that you:
support "total war" against all Muslims and the reduction of the religion of Islam to "cult status"?
think the U.S. is OK to go ahead and do this?
consider Muslims to be the "enemy of the West"?
assert the Geneva Convention is no barrier to militarily targeting non-combatant Muslims abroad (which currently is all of them)? How about American Muslims? Can they be targeted militarily as well?
claim there is no such thing as moderate Islam?
believe there are 140 million Muslims who hate "everything you stand for"? Really? Everything?
believe the Crusades were justified? Even the ones waged against other Christians?
Backpedalling in 3, 2, 1...

I made my point in my first comment. I explained my point to you - as you needed it explaining- in my second. You are an idiot. I will not respond again.

>> ^messenger:

You're putting words in the commentators' mouths by assuming the answer to your opening question. These two would not characterise Islam moderate, and they suggested nothing of the kind. That's equivalent to me just assuming that you support the actions of Anders Brevik because you're afraid of a European takeover of Islam. Fair?
And FWIW, everything you said about Islam and the Quran also holds true for Christianity and the Bible (except of course for the etymology). For example, the Bible is very clear on the mandate to spread Christianity -- where do you think Islam got the idea? These commentators are derisory of the material taught in this course, derisory of the same things you just said were "extreme" and "ridiculous", so I'm not sure what point you're making except that you're a wee bit xenophobic.>> ^A10anis:
So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.


I suggest you read my comment again, slowly. Far from putting words in their mouths, I pose the legitimate question; "how would they characterize islam?" Please observe the question mark which, funnily enough, denotes a question NOT a statement. However, they certainly DID suggest what their answer would be. My inference is based upon their demeanor of derision and incredulity at anything said by Dooley, and the fact that they openly condemn him as a war monger. The two comments that I said were "extreme" and "ridiculous," were just that. The other comments made by Dooley were legitimate. Your Brevik comment is absurd and, as such, is not worth commenting on. As for you comparing islam with christianity? What are you talking about? I am an atheist and deride ALL myths. However, in defence of Christianity; When was the last Christian suicide bomber? When was the last time Christians flew planes into buildings? When was the last time a Christian stoned a woman to death or carried out an "honour" killing, or hung gays from a crane? When was the last time a christian beheaded a non-believer, etc, etc? Comparing the two is ignorant and intellectual laziness. If by xenophobic you mean I am afraid of those who wish to radically change our lives and drag us back to the bronze age, then yes, I am very afraid. Islam is an insidious threat, one we ignore at our peril. Finally, If you wish clarification on any other points that you don't understand, I will happily explain them.

You're putting words in the commentators' mouths by assuming the answer to your opening question. These two would not characterise Islam moderate, and they suggested nothing of the kind. That's equivalent to me just assuming that you support the actions of Anders Brevik because you're afraid of a European takeover of Islam. Fair?

And FWIW, everything you said about Islam and the Quran also holds true for Christianity and the Bible (except of course for the etymology). For example, the Bible is very clear on the mandate to spread Christianity -- where do you think Islam got the idea? These commentators are derisory of the material taught in this course, derisory of the same things you just said were "extreme" and "ridiculous", so I'm not sure what point you're making except that you're a wee bit xenophobic.>> ^A10anis:

So, how would these two guys characterize the islamic faith? Would they say islam is benign and wants to co-exist peacefully with the west, allowing freedom from religious intrusion, equality for woman, gays, and those of other faiths? The evidence shows the opposite. The very word islam means submission, it is not just a faith, it is a theocracy and dictates every facet of daily life. Dooley's first comment about Hiroshima was extreme, and the FBI comment about Obama being influenced by islamic extremists was ridiculous. But the quran -despite people claiming it is taken "out of context"- is very clear on the propagation of islam. The quran must be followed by every muslim and In 50 years- it has been predicted- muslims in europe will have the balance of voting power. If that happens the commentators, who are so derisory today, will be able to see just how "moderate" islam will be.

mmmmmmmmm... bibley!>> ^dag:

Well if you're going to summon @shinyblurry - you need the right incantation. Mecca lecca high, mecca hiney ho!>> ^shuac:
I can't wait for shinyblurry to come and tell us why vicarious redemption isn't immoral. Or how vicarious redemption isn't at all like scapegoating (assuming scapegoating is bad). Or how the term "vicarious redemption" doesn't really apply to Jesus (assuming vicarious redemption is bad).
Basically, anything to do with Christianity is good. And any and all criticism of it is bad.
^ That's what I can't wait for shinyblurry to come and do.
And quote scripture. That's my favorite.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Well if you're going to summon @shinyblurry - you need the right incantation. Mecca lecca high, mecca hiney ho!>> ^shuac:

I can't wait for shinyblurry to come and tell us why vicarious redemption isn't immoral. Or how vicarious redemption isn't at all like scapegoating (assuming scapegoating is bad). Or how the term "vicarious redemption" doesn't really apply to Jesus (assuming vicarious redemption is bad).
Basically, anything to do with Christianity is good. And any and all criticism of it is bad.
^ That's what I can't wait for shinyblurry to come and do.
And quote scripture. That's my favorite.

A rather simplistic, populist bit of tripe.

To start with, if this guy thinks that things were so great back in the 1960s then maybe he should think again. The 'middle class' he talks about in the 60s was a far smaller entity than it is in 2011. In the 60s the country had a higher proportion of people in the 'lower' class. Since that time, the average american family has gotten proportionally wealthier - not poorer - and enjoys a higher standard of living, more property, and greater economic freedom than ever before. The entire premise of this video is nothing but an anachronistic fantasy.

The pap about families easily affording homes, cars, education, and retirement in the 60s on a single income is also a load of bull feathers. Middle class stiffs had to make tough choices back then too, and didn't have the dosh to just toss around money like that. His cutsey chalkboard claptrap cartoons of a smiling 'middle class' family easily affording any expense they wanted is stupidly wrong.

And this moron acts like people on a single income TODAY can't afford a home, car, college, and retirement. I am the lone wage-earner in my family. Not ONCE have I gotten government assistance or a handout on the dole. And I own a home, 2 cars, have $13,000 in savings for the kids, and I'm on track to be a millionaire when I retire. How did I do it? Because I'm not stupid. The middle class doesn't have to go into debt for these things - and this JERK'S premise that MC families have to rack up huge debt to live life is absolute specious.

And unions - yeesh. I noticed carefully that this obviously neolib goombah didn't bother mentioning that the over 26 TRILLION dollars in debt this nation has only exists because of private and public sector union unfunded liabilities. Corporations send world overseas because unions ARE making the cost of business in the U.S. (not to mention the fact that we're #1 in the world in corporate taxation) unfeasible for many industries. And he also doesn't mention the decrease in union size is only in the private sector, but that PUBLIC sector unions have swollen in size to gargantuan, slovenly, grotesque levels - and are (of course) literally breaking America's bank with thier costs. Of course companies outsource labor when paying a US employee costs them 100X as much money for only a fraction of the output. Only in the neolib Planet Fantasy does everyone get 100,000 a year for pushing brooms, assembling widgets, and other unskilled jobs that any reasonably trained lemming can perform.

He also doesn't mention that the top 50% of American taxpayers are paying 95% of the taxes, and that the "middle class" that he disingenously claims to speak for is actually paying almost NO INCOME TAXES at all. The bottom 50% of wage-earners (that's the middle class for you neolib idiots out there) only pay 5% of the taxes. How much more can the you burden the top 50% with before they pull up stakes and leave? That's the problem New York City, Chicago, LA, and many other neolib Meccas are facing. They have raised taxes so high on "the rich" (which Obama defines as anyone earning over 200K) that they are leaving these leftist enclaves, which in turn are literally dying on the vine under the weight of their own stupid policies and union debt.

But I do agree with some of the comments about lobbyists and the tax code. I do believe that is a problem, but it is a GOVERNMENT problem not a lobbyist problem. The government is the new "Robber Baron", when 100 years ago the government was protecting people from Robber barons. But of course this guy doesn't focus on the fact that it is GOVERNMENT making these stupid laws, and not companies. In fact, many companies hated the repeal of Glass-Steagall but government wanted it so Barney Frank could have is precious UFFODUBBLE HOWZING! Banks never wanted to be forced to give loans to people who they never would have touched in the 1960s - but Government played the Race Card with accusations of redlining and forced it through.

The problems with income disparity people whine about are largely a phantom. More people in the US are wealthier than they've ever been in the nation's history. Carping about how much MORE the uber-rich have than the middle class is pure sophistry.

The (semi-functional) mentally ill homeless are less likely to show up for an activist/political feeding. They are roughly 40-50% of the homeless population; the other HALF of the homeless, of sound mind, is going around using public space as their own personal toilet per my example.

You do know there are laws and rules for public space? You cannot drive your car across the grass of a public park, nor can you live in a tent on a public beach.

Homelessness is terrible, but politically-speaking who is really trying to help and who is defending it as a legitimate lifestyle?

(Pro-tip: If you let your children run wild in a public park with herds of homeless about, you're a fcking idiot).

Unfortunately for the left, actions have consequences. When you make your city a mecca for bums--surprise!--you get more bums. Same with illegals.

Jugears McPrankster thought he'd get his rocks off with a little self-righteous acting. Yeah, okay. Then he goes back to the basement to count the views. Feh.

Citation: common sense, rare to endangered among leftists.

>> ^swedishfriend:

Quantummushroom: "Discounting the mentally ill"
That is a huge portion of the homeless! Discount them as well as the ones who have actually had a shitty life and you are only talking about a tiny percentage of the homeless. What is the point of talking about the homeless if you want to ignore most of the homeless in your discussion?
-Karl
PS. they should especially be allowed in a public park! Anyone should be allowed in any public space, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be public by definition, right?

@SDGundamX

Wow, where to start. Your reply to my latest comment illustrates how you (willingly or ignorantly?) continue to misconstrue the issue, building up strawman after strawman, putting words and notions in Harris' mouth and mine, while ignoring everything I post. And then you post an article that maliciously distorts the views of Harris and Hitchens, depicting them as solely intent on vilifying Islam. If that article really describes what you think than I should probably stop arguing with you and spend my time better, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Yes, I read the book you linked, or at least what the preview offered, which was more than enough to show that it does not go against anything Harris or I argue, only against the strawmen you prop up. A few comments on the book nonetheless:

The introduction (the one not by the book's author) is full of wishy-washy 'everything-and-its-contraire' platitudes, and ironically refers to Muslims as a unified whole, which is exactly what you accuse H. and I of... that's a good start; it's okay to make sweeping generalizations if they're positive? But even this text recognises that the secular influence of the "West" upon Muslim modernists forces them away from the core tenets of Islam and it's sacred text, which then sees the rise of fundamentalist backlash. And then there's this tidbit in the conclusion:

"Muslims, we often forget, do not always act as Muslims or members of a religious community; rather, they respond to economic, social and political needs that may direct conduct more than ideological signposts do."

Well hello captain Obvious! Either he's trying to address Christian right white trash, in which case he should use a bilboard instead of a book (I kid, I kid), or he takes his projected audience for fools. Or maybe he's building up to the sort of strawmen you seem so fond of attacking.

Now to the actual book: the author suggests that the world concentrates on "Arab" Islam, and ignores the rest. Not only is that false (at least where H. and I are concerned), not only does it carry racist undertones (yes, "Arab" is, for lack of a better word, a "race"; "Muslim" is not), but it purposefully ignores that the Middle East is Islam's birthplace, and still regarded as it's "Mecca" (haha). It's fine and dandy to put the blame that it deserves on European colonialism, but the author seems to forget that the spread of Islam is mostly due to, hey, Arabo-Islamic colonisation (and/or military conquest, sometimes with a healthy sprinkling of "cleansing", i.e. persecution of non-muslims 'till there were none left). But hey, Christianity did the same.
A really weird part is when the author somehow turns our quasi-universal use of the "Christian" calender into an illustration of Euro-American "structural violence and hegemony". Wow.
All in all, I learned nothing new whatsoever from what I read of that book, and cannot recommend it.

So there are modern/accomodationist interpretations of the Qur'an and Islamic doctrine? So not all Muslims are crazy male Saladins (I'm not making this up)? No one here is disputing that. So there are also other factors at work here? Not being denied either.

Neither are we arguing that muslims are more likely to commit violence than anyone else. By taking away the bold when citing me, you changed the meaning of the citation, creating one of the strawmen you also use to attack Harris: the key words are "in the name of" (or, to paraphrase "with the justification/motivation" of religion).

What is being argued is that Islam, i.e. the doctrines found in the Qur'an and Hadith, justify - render moral even - actions that are unethical, harmful, violent (the same is true of the Bible, from which Sharia law stems, but it is much less practiced than under Islam). That is why I quote the Qur'an, which - whether you like it or not - constitutes the core of the religion called "Islam" ("submission", btw... a pretty bad start). Nor can you deny that said religion demands that its holy text be considered the infallible and ultimate word of God (33:36). Many Muslims ignore the worser parts? Yay hooray! Doesn't change that some do not.

As for evidence (of which the book you cite, at least the parts accessible to me, contained none), you will never get it from me because you want evidence that supports the strawman arguments you put in H.'s mouth and mine, and there's no way you're getting that from either. What you do get, from the small sample of examples above (in a mess of html, i admit), is evidence that Islam today, more than any other religion, is at the source of (e.g. application of Sharia law) or aggravates (e.g. honour killing, fgm) acts of violence, discrimination and barbarity.

Is the fact that more than half of the active terrorist groups in existence today wear their Islamist agenda proudly, often including it in their name, not "evidency" enough for you?

Is the fact that unethical practices are condoned by Islamic (and almost only Islamic) regimes, even enshrined in civil law (which is also religious law), not evidence of Islam's virulence?

What more do you want? You say "You can't attack the religion without attacking the people who believe in that religion". You, and the author of that pathetic excuse of an article you just linked to, are trying to project a generalising, hate and fear-mongering view on people like Harris and myself, something I find both ignorant and insulting. Of course I can criticise an ideology, warn against its potential (and existing) negative consequences, without targeting every one of its adherents, or even the majority thereof. When Hitchens points out that the idea of vicarious redemption, central to Christianity, is unethical, and the Christian God's treatment of Abraham disgusting, is he saying that all Christian's are unethical and disgusting?

You say: Prove that people in Islamic countries are suffering because of Islam and not because we colonized them, used them as pawns in our own political games, got overthrown or kicked out, then either left them to rot or turned them into our oil suppliers while funding autocratic regimes and looking the other way as they tortured and killed their own people. Prove that it's Islam and not the appalling lack of medical care, education, political access, or access to a reliable legal system that accounts for the violence. Prove that the tenets of Islam are a significant factor in the violence and not just lipservice paid to justify it.

Quite simple really: compare pre-Islamic revolution Iran with post-Islamic revolution Iran. Compare the twin fates of Pakistan and India, the former being "created" as an Islamic nation. Which of the two bears the record for honour killings (the Sihks and Hindus try hard to catch up, I know)? Which of the two was hiding the world's most famous terrorist and Islamic fundamentalist? Which of the two has one of the lowest rates of literacy for women? In which of these two countries, whose post-colonial fate is practically identical, do you have 7/10 chances to be sexually abused in a police station if you are a women? I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Colonialism and its modern forms (globalisation, etc.) have a lot of blame to shoulder, no doubt whatsoever. But that does not diminish in any way the import and effect of Islam's doctrines. Did colonialists invent sharia law, for example, or demand it be enforced? No. Mohamed and his ideology did.
Blaming everything on colonialism and "western" influence is a twisted form of pretentiousness, as if only the "west" could come up with bad stuff. Arabs, Asians, Africans, etc. are people too, they too can be atrocious, it's not just reserved for the whiteys! It's as wrong as blaming slavery entirely on Europe and the American colonies. The slave trade in Africa and the Middle East was going on long before "westerners" became buyers, and guess who was doing the trading?

As long as you insist on blinding yourself to the influence of Islam in the world today, or at least to its negative aspects, you will have a skewed and prejudiced view, exactly what you are accusing others of. Of course it is only one factor among many, but it is an important factor, whether that suits your guilt-by-association-ridden conscience or not.

It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?

Whites are already minorities, both by corruption and deliberately erasing American principles and history. Or didn't you notice that Whites are exempt from equal protection under the law ("hate crimes") when the assailant(s) are Black? Either everyone has the same rights or no one has any rights. And right now, you know as well as I do if you utter anything a minority finds offensive in 'polite' company--including demonstrable facts--our vicious, retarded 'multi-cultural' society-keepers will escort you to the street. And really, what is a "minority" anyway? Women outnumber men and yet the former remains a minority. Whites are already minorities in California. There is no "reverse affirmative action" there.

Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.

And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.

And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war.

This is a retarded argument; I know you didn't create it, but yeah, it's out there, and "they" will believe anything as "they" have never been taught differently. These "clever" lefties who claim Whites were trespassers in primitive centuries the world over is ridiculous. Back then there were no unified nations with solid borders, language and culture in the New World to invade, just warring Indian "nations". They forget that England and France, countries filled with White guys--were at war with each other for centuries. And let's not forget all the Asian nations, each one a cultural gem...that wants all other Asian peoples destroyed. The Chinese and Japanese are mortal enemies, and neither likes Koreans.

Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

If Mexican and African minorities are the future for America, I don't expect any respect of Whites' rights, or right to exist, just like now. There's a whole poor-me victimization industry out there. They create enemies (and excuses) out of whole cloth.

If you want a glimpse of America's fucked-up future, look at Mexico. Mexicans are fine people and Mexican immigrants who assimilate have enriched America, yet somehow their original cultural model in Mexico is simply fucked, an entire nation with enormous natural resources yet run by kleptocrats and drug lords. Anyone concerned with American 'plutocracy' should view the shit going on down yonder.

You sort-of asked but I'm telling you--all of you--anyway. When the White American population falls below 50%, it's Game Over for American principles. America in 2050 will be an even bigger parody of what it is now. Detroit is the future of America. Brokeass idiot California is the future of America. Americans all over are voting with their feet right now. They're leaving liberal meccas and moving to business-friendly states with low taxes (don't expect to hear anything about it on CNN or MS-DNC). But it can't last. Soon there'll be nowhere to run.

I've already made peace with the idea that there will be a civil war, hopefully States against the federal leviathan. And I fully expect DC to turn a war of principles into a racial thang to save its ugly ass.

This isn't about racial "superiority" in the slightest, but if you'll direct your attention to the screen, which races have invented the most advanced tech, including the best kinds of government (so far)? Don't answer that, you'll just be nailed to the cross of tolerance.

I'm Jewish (by blood, not faith) so I figure I'm screwed anyway. I guess I can scooch to Israel. Observe that many of the new kickass technologies were invented by Israelis, while Silicon Valley is stuck holding its dick with eco-green bullshit. "Next year in Jerusalem!" Nice and peaceful over there.

Really, I don't overly give a shit any more. The wrong people now control schools that shouldn't even exist, so the generations coming up are ignorami. The wrong peeps run most of the media and entertainment that arguably appeal to the worst sides of humanity. Freedom is hard work. Who wants that?

Getting angry at me for telling the truth will just waste your time. I already know how you FEEL. Those loudly announcing that neurosurgeons and witch doctors are cultural equals in the name of multicultural tolerance now run the show. And when the show ends they quietly go see the neurosurgeon.

Libertarian ethos ain't gonna save us. Neither will socialism. Mayhap it would be better if the world ended next year.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.
All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.
War works.

Of course we can hold trial for someone who declares war on entire societies. Yes, very much so. We can hold trial, or at least attempt to hold trial, for anyone. And we should.
It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?
Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.
And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.
And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war. Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

>> ^quantumushroom:

You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.
All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.
War works.


Of course we can hold trial for someone who declares war on entire societies. Yes, very much so. We can hold trial, or at least attempt to hold trial, for anyone. And we should.

It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?

Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.

And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.

And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war. Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

>> ^quantumushroom:

You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.
All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.
War works.

>> ^chilaxe:
Some asshole dying is so sad! Where are the carebears when you need them??

>> ^blankfist:


For me, I don't mourn his passing; I mourn the disregard for his right to a fair trial. I don't think anyone ever intended to bring him in to give him a fair trial. Revenge makes for a great movie premise, and it feels awesomely satisfying when the bad guy dies at the end, but in the real world it's scary to think some people's rights can be skirted completely as long as the majority of people think it's okay.




Problem is, by elevating him to Hitler level status (and btw there was a genuine threat to the current order of things) you also empower his ideology. Treat him as the criminal he was instead of engaging on the level he wanted and the U.S could easily have avoided the nonsense and horror of two major wars. As Netrunner has said we should have have intel-led special forces running around dealing with this criminal conspiracy in the first place and bringing those criminals to justice in the first place.

If ever there was a sensible way of dealing with external threats and asserting the rule of law and democracy as the most desirable political ideology that was surely it.

Your last comment is a disgrace to everyone who's died and suffered in the last ten years.

You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.

All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.

War works.


>> ^chilaxe:
Some asshole dying is so sad! Where are the carebears when you need them??


>> ^blankfist:



For me, I don't mourn his passing; I mourn the disregard for his right to a fair trial. I don't think anyone ever intended to bring him in to give him a fair trial. Revenge makes for a great movie premise, and it feels awesomely satisfying when the bad guy dies at the end, but in the real world it's scary to think some people's rights can be skirted completely as long as the majority of people think it's okay.

UNWANTED is right.

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://www.stopshariahnow.org

Little by little Shariah is creeping into our society, as per the following examples:

*footbaths in banks & airports (Minneapolis)
*polygamy (USA & UK)
*forced child marriages (Europe & Canada)
*honor killings (USA, Canada, Europe)
*spousal abuse among Muslim immigrant populations (USA & Europe)
*Islamic holidays replacing American holidays like Labor Day (Tyson Foods)
*publicly funded Shariah-Islamic schools (Virginia, NY, Minnesota)
*companies creating Islamic prayer rooms (Wachovia)
*nurses required to turn beds towards Mecca five times a day (UK)
*elimination of wine and alcohol at hotels (Hyatt)
*separation of men and women for recreation activities (Harvard)
*taxi drivers refusing to pick up passengers with wine, alcohol or seeing eye dogs (Minneapolis)
*and a growing Shariah Finance investment market supported by Citibank, UBS, HSBC, Dow Jones, Standard & Pours, and nearly every national investment bank you can think of, which is branding “Shariah” as some innocuous religious accommodation required by “moderate” Muslims