Raw Terror

Folks sometimes accuse me of being “Islamophobic”. I’m nothing of the sort. A “phobia” is a baseless fear of something harmless. I don’t have that.

What I have is a historically justified, fact-based fear of Islam. It’s not just Christianity in funny hats. It is a warriors religion and the stated goal is to establish a “Caliphate”, an Islamic government covering the whole planet. And they have been pursuing that goal, first with swords, then with guns, now with modern weapons, and always with raw terror, for the last 14 centuries.

In that regard, I got to thinking about how little we hear about most of the people killed and wounded by Muslims in terrorist jihadi attacks around the planet. Here in the 21st century, we have web sites that do nothing but collect such data. (In passing, let me note that growing up in the 1950s, here’s what I expected for the 21st century):

21st century flying car.png

Instead of jetpacks and flying cars, we’ve gotten religious wars in the form of endless Islamic violence for the 14th century in a row … but I digress. I was talking about the record of people killed by Islamic terrorists. The website that I found with the most detailed data is here. Below is a typical part of their record. It covers a pretty average week, during which 144 people were killed and 202 wounded in the ongoing global jihad.

islamic terrorist attacks 2002.png

This tiny segment of the full record highlights one of the reasons that most folks don’t realize just how violent and murderous the ongoing Islamic Jihad is … it’s mostly happening in cities and towns we’ve never heard of, in poor countries halfway around the world, to our brown and black brothers and sisters. In other words, it’s mostly invisible in the West.

Anyhow, I collected all of the data that the site has. It starts on September 11, 2001, and stretches all the way up to the present. Of course, it’s divided into 19 web pages with no option to download the data, so I had to write a computer program to scrape the data off of each page and collect it all into one big file.

Then I took monthly totals of all the people who were killed during that 18+ year period. Here’s a month-by-month graph of the killings, starting with September 2001 and the World Trade Center attacks;

people killed by muslims jihad.png

YIKES! Didn’t expect that. A quarter-million people killed by Islamic lunatics since the 9/11 attacks!

Intrigued, I thought I’d see what the biggest attacks were. Here’s a list of those attacks where jihadists killed over 500 people:

Date     City           Country Killed  Wounded	Notes     
9/11/01	 New York NY    USA	2752	251	Islamic hijackers steer two planes packed with fuel and passengers into the World Trade Center killing hundreds on impact and eventually killing thousands when the towers collapsed.  At least 200 are seriously injured.
8/14/07	 Sinjar         Iraq	796	1500	Five separate suicide bombings by al-Qaeda militants targeted at a religious minority group kill nearly eight hundred innocents.
3/7/10	 Dogo Nahauwa	Nigeria	528	600	Over five-hundred Christians mostly women and children are hacked to death by Muslim raiders with machetes in a night-time attack on their village.  The killers yelled 'Allah Akbar' as they chopped.
6/10/14	 Mosul          Iraq	670	14	Six-hundred and seventy Shia inmates at a prison are summarily executed by a group of Islamic State terrorists.  Only seventeen survived.
6/12/14	 Camp Speicher	Iraq	1700	0	Over seventeen-hundred unarmed cadets are captured and massacred by the Islamic State.
8/6/14	 Gwoza	        Nigeria	997	40	One-thousand people are reported dead after Boko Haram fire indiscriminately at residents of a Christian village while praising Allah.
8/15/14	 Deir al-Zor	Syria	700	0	Seven-hundred tribesman are executed by the caliphate over the course of a week mostly by beheading.
9/1/14	 Sinjar	        Iraq	600	0	Mass graves unearth at least six-hundred more Yazidi victims of Islamist massacre than previously reported.
10/7/15	 Baga	        Nigeria	2000	500	More than 2000 villagers are feared dead following a massive killing spree by Boko Haram that spanned 16 villages.
10/14/17 Mogadishu	Somalia	587	316	Religious radicals detonate two suicide truck bombs in commercial districts devastating over five hundred lives.
10/16/17 Raqqa	        Syria	533	0	Over five-hundred victims of caliphate execution are discovered in a mass grave.
12/13/19 Fallujah	Iraq	643	0	A mass grave is found containing the tortured remains of over six-hundred Sunni men and boys executed by Shia militia in June 2016.

The depressing part? In every case above, there were over five hundred people murdered by Islamic terrorists … and I’d only heard of the first one.

And that unimaginable number of killings is why I say I don’t have Islamophobia—I have a valid fear of Islam.

Now, do not be lulled into thinking that these folks doing the killing are somehow Islamic “extremists”. They are not. The jihadis are simply doing exactly what the Koran decrees and orders—they are doing their best to spread Islam by the sword, just as they’ve been doing since the 7th century. And their views are held by far, far too many Muslims. Here’re the results from the Pew Trust poll of worldwide Muslims:

Islam the religion of peace.jpg

Just under half of Muslims worldwide think that the penalty for adultery should be DEATH … man, you’d likely have only about half of the married folks in the US left alive if that were the case. And just over a third of the Muslims worldwide think that anyone leaving the religion should be killed.

“Religion of Peace”? … don’t think so. Bunch of bloodthirsty savages, three-quarters of a billion of them want to kill adulterers, and half a billion want to kill anyone leaving the religion. And when the numbers and the percentages are that big, they’re not “extremists”—they’re a vibrant part of the Islamic mainstream.

So no … Islam is not just another religion. Islam is a violent warrior’s creed, founded by Muhammad, a man who led his raiders into an adjacent village, defeated the villagers in battle, killed every surviving male with pubic hair, and took the women as sex slaves. And of course, the Koran specifies that all of that is just fine, and it says that killing infidels and keeping sex slaves is just what every upstanding man should do. And this is why Boko Haram and ISIS kidnap and keep women for sex slaves in 2019. For details of that shameful central chapter in Islamic history, see here.

It’s funny. I’ve looked through lots of religious books, and I can’t find any mention of Jesus or the Buddha doing anything remotely like what Muhammad did … much less saying that their followers should do that until they’ve conquered the entire world. But the Koran says exactly that.

Please be clear that I have no problems with Muslims. I have a problem with the Koran and with Islam itself. Folks like to claim that critics of Islam like myself have issues with Muslims as people. I don’t, nor do many others.

But it’s far easier to shout “ISLAMOPHOBE” than it is to accept the ugly and uncomfortable truth:

Islam is different from all other modern religions.

It is not a religion as we think of religions. The Koran is a warriors text, an instruction book for the mistreatment of women both in and out of the house, and a terrorist manual directing the followers in the rules and details of just how to spread Islam around the planet by violence.

And sadly, it’s already gained a foothold in the US. Since 9/11, no less than 169 people have been killed by Islamic jihadists, including 49 in the Orlando nightclub, 14 in San Bernardino, and 13 at Fort Hood, not to mention 3 dead and 264 wounded in the Boston Marathon bombing.

So … what can we do to slow this down?

The first thing we need to do is to love the sinner and hate the sin. The problem is not Muslims. It is Islam and the Koran. If the “hate speech” laws in the EU were equally applied, the Koran would be banned entirely. It contains a host of vile 7th-century barbarities directed first at women, second at Jews and Christians, third at “pagans”, and fourth at Muslims who misbehave.

In the year 2019, when we should be at least roughly civilized, followers of the Koran who are obeying its strictures to the letter chop off hands, bury women up to their necks and stone them to death with specially selected small stones to prolong their agony, throw gay people off of buildings, burn prisoners alive in cages, execute women for the heinous sin of being raped, kill their own daughters for falling in love with a non-Muslim, and chop off a hand and a foot on opposite sides of the body of those unlucky enough to want to leave the “religion” … religion, my ass. Religions do NOT do those things in 2019.

The danger is the following dilemma:

When Muslims are in the minority, they’re all about minority rights.

But when you look at countries where Muslims are in the majority, there are no minority rights.

The true conundrum is that to fix this, either Muslims have to reject Islam entirely, or Islam needs to undergo a complete reformation. First option is not likely. Second option, well, the last guy who tried to reform Islam was Baha’u’llah, founder of the Baha’i sect of Islam. But he and his followers were persecuted by Muslims and many were killed … kind of a discouraging lesson for any potential future reformers.

And in neither case can non-Muslims move things along much. To reform Islam you need to be a Muslim; no “Jews and Crusaders”, as Bin Laden styled us, need apply.

So I have no real answer, other than to say we need to be very cautious. We already have Muslim schools in the US teaching their tiny students violence. Here’s what one school in Philadelphia had kids singing, translated from the Arabic:

Those who accept humiliation – what is the point in their existence?

Those who reject oppression are the ones who assert their existence, and they eliminate the injustice from the land of the Arabs.

Rebels! Rebels! Rebels! Glorious steeds call us and lead us onto paths leading to the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The blood of martyrs protects us. Paradise needs real men!

The land of the Prophet Muhammad’s Night Journey is calling us. Our Palestine must return to us.

Oh Saladdin, your men are among us – shame will be washed away!

You need force and the Quran, oh free people!

We must persevere no matter what happens, and with the help of the Omnipotent Lord, day will follow night.

Take us, oh ships, until we liberate our lands – until we reach our shores and crush the treacherous ones!

Blow, oh winds of Paradise – flow, oh rivers of martyrs!

My Islam is calling, who is going to heeds its call? Rise, oh righteous ones!

I’m sorry to say, that is a true face of Islam in America—Muslim schools teaching tiny Muslim children to hate and kill “infidels” and to join the “rivers of martyrs”. Inhumane.

So one thing we need to do is to keep a very close watch on mosques and Islamic schools. These violent behaviors are taught. We need to interrupt that teaching.

Next, we should NOT allow the use of foreign funds to build mosques in the US. Saudi Arabia has put up lots of money to build lots of splendid mosques in the EU, and far too many Europeans are paying a price in Islamic rape, murder, bombings, and violence.

Next, we need to tell the truth about Islam. Unfortunately, in Europe that’s already illegal. The French politician Marine Le Pen was tried for “disseminating violent images” when she Tweeted a picture of ISIS fighters executing captives on a beach. You know you’re in Bizarro-world when jihadis chop off prisoners heads without any retribution, and a woman halfway around the planet gets tried for doing nothing more than sharing a picture of that reprehensible action …

The other thing that we need to do is to get rid of the terms “Islamophobe” and “Islamophobic”. The only purpose of these words is to marginalize and discredit anyone who is in any way critical of Islam. Very, very few people in the West are “Islamophobic” any more than we are “Hinduphobic” or “Buddhophobic”. We may have legitimate concerns about any of those groups, but regarding Islam, it’s not a phobia.

It’s a very real and justified fear.

And that fear is a reflection of the undeniable fact that followers of Islam cruelly murdered and brutally executed a quarter-million people in the last eighteen years. And if you are not fearful and concerned about that … well, you should be. Below is a photo of what these true believers are capable of. I said we need to tell the truth. Here is ISIS, faithfully following the Koran’s instruction to kill the unbelievers, electrocuting fifteen defenseless prisoners …

Google ChromeScreenSnapz202.png

You know, dear friends, I’ve seen and done a few things. And now that I’ve made it to what I call my “middle youth”, there’s not a whole lot that I still fear.

But I have to confess—people who can do that kind of a terrible inhumane thing calmly and as a matter of religious principle, they make my bowels weak. They are the undying enemies of all Western beliefs, ideas, and morals, and we should never, ever forget that.

In hopes of more peaceful times in 2020, I remain,

Yr mst hmbl & obt svt,

w.

DATA: I’ve put the entire dataset of the 36,746 incidents as a zipped comma-separated (CSV) file (1.1 MByte) here so you can do your own analysis. Be forewarned—it is a very sad record, with deaths and injuries on every single one of the 36,746 lines.

 

64 thoughts on “Raw Terror

  1. There is no question at all that the warrior’s movement needs to be rooted out and exposed for the violent, inhuman behavior they praise. Even the Samurai had more “morality” than the Koran, living under either group is a miserable existence.

    Like

  2. I have seen firsthand what islam does to its own adherents, much less to its enemies. What should terrify all real human beings is the political left defending and embracing islam and its murderous reign.

    Like

  3. Back when Communism fell I was asked “Since the USSR has gone, who will we be facing next?” My reply was Islam since they have been at war with us since we had a Navy.

    Like

    • Russia was quite adept at using islamists against their enemies long before the ’17 revolution. The Game did not end with the coming of communism, and the fall of the Ottoman Empire gave them a whole new arena to turn islamists against England, France and ultimately America. Czarist or communist, Russia was always careful to keep a tight rein on muslims inside their borders. Just look at their intricate machinations in Middle East and Near East today, playing islamic factions off each other quite adroitly.

      Like

  4. -And the liberal press (and the UN) jumps heavily on Israel, who is simply trying to defend its own people. Oddly, the Baha’i faith is headquartered in Israel – I wonder if the ‘Islamic Reformation’ (if any) will come from the land where all faiths may prosper?

    Like

    • The peaceful “Islamic Reformation” is a pipe dream of Western Progressives. I can’t think of any reformations of any religion that did not take it back to its original teachings, and in this case those are the Koran itself along with the Hadiths of its Prophet.

      If Islam does somehow manage a “Reformation”, I don’t think the rest of the world is going to like it one little bit.

      Like

  5. Hi, Willis, this is great. Thank you for processing the data. I recommend that you also check out https://www.jihadwatch.org , and sign up for their emails. Also, https://www.understandingthethreat.com/ ; worth following, on FB too, is Bosch Fawstin, an ex-muslim cartoonist: http://fawstin.blogspot.com/2012/04/who-cares-about-islam.html?m=1

    I tend to say the same as you, “I have no problem with muslim individuals.” But wait: what if they actually practise and promote some of the barbarities of islam? Say, subjection of women, FGM, honour killing, hatred of gays or Jews, or supporting the imposition of sharia, or jihadists? Then I certainly do have a problem.

    Like

  6. Willis

    Very well said. I will forward this to family & friends.

    You are probably already aware of these sites, but just in case.

    https://barenakedislam.com/
    https://voiceofeurope.com/
    https://www.jihadwatch.org/
    https://gellerreport.com/

    I tried to display just the memes, but I can’t, so here are some links. (I have 50+ assorted memes if you are interested.) I find that these ‘visual aids’ can be more impactful than several paragraphs of text. Perhaps that is just me.

    *****************************
    Lets hope we can all have a Happy New Year.

    Jack

    Like

  7. Islam is a hugely fragmented religion, way more than just the Sunni/Shia division. So one can find both tolerance and extremist branches.
    What is true is that the more tolerant branches have persistently been under determined western assault, most recently in Syria, where a liberal and tolerant multi cultural society has been destroyed by foreign intervention. What then remains are the most lethal and extreme segments.
    So when deploring the rise of Muslim extremism, we should remember that we made it happen.

    Like

    • No, muslim extremism is a basic component of islam. muslims murder each other gleefully when they don’t have anyone else to gleefully murder. THAT has been the totality of islam from its very creation. Using the “look what you made me do” defense is what children do.

      Like

    • Salute!

      YGBSM!

      Now that the political/religious door has been opened…… I have a very strong “feeling” ( like the hundredth of a degree that made last year the warmest evah), that the poster had tickets to the inauguration ball that never happened and couldn’t get a refund.

      As far as fragmented religions go, I don’t think you can beat the Christians, and it is much more than Catholics/Protestants. However, I can’t find one “splinter” group that advocates killing folks that do not agree with them.

      OTOH, I am finding it easy to find the aforementioned folks that voted for the losing candidate but didn’t get refunds for their tickets to the ball. I especially like the view that “a liberal and tolerant multi cultural society has been destroyed by foreign intervention” Those pesky Russians are everywhere, I tellya!

      Got the popcorn ready for other poster.

      Gums sends…

      Liked by 1 person

    • etudiant December 30, 2019 at 5:39 am

      Islam is a hugely fragmented religion, way more than just the Sunni/Shia division. So one can find both tolerance and extremist branches.

      You are right. There are a few, very few, truly tolerant branches of Islam. But when almost half the Muslims worldwide want to execute someone for adultery, then the word “tolerant” takes on an entirely different meaning.

      Here’s how “tolerant” often works in the Islamic world:

      An extremist Muslim wants to chop my head off.

      A tolerant Muslim wants an extremist Muslim to chop my head off.

      What is true is that the more tolerant branches have persistently been under determined western assault, most recently in Syria, where a liberal and tolerant multi cultural society has been destroyed by foreign intervention. What then remains are the most lethal and extreme segments.
      So when deploring the rise of Muslim extremism, we should remember that we made it happen.

      WE made the rise of Muslim extremism happen? Dude, you must be smoking the good shit.

      Violence, and in particular violent jihad and violence against women, are baked into both the Koran and Hadiths. Consider the following timeline:

      Muhammad died in 632. Before he was even buried, the religion split into Sunnis and Shiites, and they started fighting with each other over who should succeed Muhammad as the leader of Islam. Peaceful people, right? …

      The first Islamic jihad started in 634, Muhammad was just two years dead. At that time in the Mideast, there were Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and a host of other peoples.

      By 638, they had conquered Jerusalem … and I’m sure there were Jewish “etudiants” in the background saying “We Jews made the rise of Muslim extremism happen” even back then …

      By 641, they had conquered most of the Levant including the ancient city of Alexandria, and all of Persia. One decade.

      By 652, only two decades after Muhammad’s death, they had a navy and started maritime jihad. They beat the Roman fleet … with some Roman etudiant mumbling in the background about how it was all the Romans’ fault that there was Muslim extremism.

      In 711, they conquered Spain. Contemporary accounts record someone named “Estudiante” saying “Somos culpable para el extremismo de los Moros” …

      In 846 they invaded Rome, destroying ancient churches and tombs. Of course, some of the Italian estudiants donned sackcloth and ashes and claimed that the destruction of the churches in Rome was their own fault.

      Following this, there were another couple of centuries of Islamic advances, into Europe on one side, North Africa, and east to India.

      Finally, in 1096, after more than four centuries of this shit, the Europeans got together and started the Crusades.

      And of course, once the Crusades were over, people had something new to blame Muslim extremism on—WE ATTACKED THEM DURING THE CRUSADES!

      Did that stop them? Don’t be foolish. They controlled Spain and part of France up until 1492, They dominated much of Europe until 1683, when they put siege to Vienna. Vienna! They were finally driven off.

      And now, 1387 years after the death of Muhammad, unbelievably, we STILL have people saying things like “So when deploring the rise of Muslim extremism, we should remember that we made it happen.”

      No, etudiant, we did NOT make it Muslim extremism happen. We didn’t make it happen now, nor in 1096, nor in 634. That’s the nature of Islam. It is a violent warriors creed. It is dedicated to ruling the world under an Islamic Caliphate with only the most version being ISIS, and it has been bent on world domination by the sword since it was founded.

      w.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. Dear Willis,
    This history from the early Islamic expansion is a discussion that I’d happily continue over a beer or two, but imho you are mistaken in your assessment and in your blanket condemnation.
    Islam today is a religion of the poor and the marginalized, of whom there are many. Absent effective efforts to integrate these multitudes, there will be strife. Islam provides a logic, but it is not the underlying impulse.
    For instance, Iran is Shiite and a theocracy, but its complicated. The place has a small and vibrant Jewish community, while also operating a repressive Islamic state. They support their fellow Shiites, in Syria and in Lebanon, but are mostly trying to keep the country together, by force if necessary.
    Saudi is comparably repressive, more so in some respects, with the official version of Islam one of the the most aggressively militant around, Saudi does fund lots of Madrasas world wide teaching their aggressive version of the faith, something which is tolerated and even funded in some perhaps foolish states such as Germany.
    That said, most Arab governments used to be secular, but we changed that. There was a secular state in Iraq under Saddam. We dumped him and left the people to rot, forcing them to seek out the only support they could find, from religion, which incidentally exacerbated civil strife there. Ditto Libya, ditto Syria, we chase what we call demons, forgetting what Jesus said about chasing demons, they are replaced by ten times their number of worse ones.

    Like

    • etudiant December 30, 2019 at 3:56 pm

      Dear Willis,
      This history from the early Islamic expansion is a discussion that I’d happily continue over a beer or two, but imho you are mistaken in your assessment and in your blanket condemnation.
      Islam today is a religion of the poor and the marginalized, of whom there are many. Absent effective efforts to integrate these multitudes, there will be strife. Islam provides a logic, but it is not the underlying impulse.

      Thanks, the beer sounds good.

      And the first question I’d ask is after the first few sips would be, just who do you think that Islam, and Judaism, and Christianity, and Hinduism were the religion of in the year 650?

      Yep, the poor and the marginalized. Same as today.

      And no, I do NOT think it’s just a curious coincidence that Islam has been trying to take over the world by the sword since Muhammad was alive. It is a central tenet of Islam.

      As to your distinguishing between the “logic” and the “impulse”, I have no idea what that means. For example, the Koran says it’s OK for Muslims to keep female prisoners of war as sex slaves forever. And Muhammad himself did that very thing … as do ISIS and Boko Haram to this very day. There are women who are sex slaves RIGHT NOW in both groups.

      Me, I don’t think those poor women would appreciate you standing around and parsing the difference between the “logic” for keeping sex slaves and the “impulse” for keeping sex slaves as an excuse for you not taking a stand and condemning Islam as the root and branch of that evil practice … as well as condemning all of the other evil 7th-century barbarities that the Koran says are wonderful plans—stoning women with small stones so the pain is greatest, cutting off the hands of criminals, killing people who leave Islam, and all the rest.

      There’s a woman in Iran who just got sentenced to 20 years in prison. Her crime?

      She took off her hijab.

      I’ll leave it to you to explain to her how this has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, because “logic” and “impulse” …

      And yes, I truly would enjoy that beer, if you’re ever an hour or so north of San Francisco, give me a shout, I’ll buy the first round.

      Regards,

      w.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Salute!

    @ the :”student”….

    Unlike Willis, I have faced folks that were determined to kill me. And vice versa.

    However, they did not “hate ” me, nor did I “hate” them. We were soldiers, and neither of us took the easy excuse that we were “carrying out orders”. Both sides believed in their cause and both rode into the valley to do and die.

    Years later, I could sit down with one of the North Viet gunners that shot me up and share a beer. He would say that he had a bad day and missed me, I would say that if I was a bit better he would have been blown to dust. And we would both laugh and be glad to have grandchildren and be super gald we did not have to meet like that again. Many of my fellow pilots have done that, and the Vee did not “rub it in”. The war was over, and I was on the side that didn’t “win”.

    It was the same with many German and Japanese that met Allied folks after WW2, and still do. My German language instructor at USAFA had flown with the Luftwaffe at the end of the war, and here he was helping me to learn his language! So all must understnad what being a professional warrior for your country means.

    That war I flew in 50 years ago was not like the one we face with Islam today. The Vee did not embody a religion or society with values and duties anywhere close to the Muslim folks. They just wanted a single country and no foreign influence. Whereas the Jihad wishes to impose their beliefs and rules and such on all of us. That’s right. All of us on the planet. Non-believers are to be dispatched. Female members of the religion are to be slaves, with death as a result of violating some of the “rules”.

    Best I can tell, the west has not imposed Islam and its violent aspect upon a third of the world. But if they wish to kill us all, then we are in for a brutal century or two. Ya think?

    I do not wish to see the next “crusade”, but it may be in the cards….

    Gums opines…

    Liked by 1 person

    • The Vietnamese were fighting to extend the control of the most murderous political ideology of the modern world, Gums. The nationalism was just window-dressing. Ho Chi Min murdered every nationalist leader he could get his hands on, prior to 1950.

      He also did his best to destroy Vietnamese national culture wherever he was in control of Vietnam. He murdered school teachers, village elders, intellectuals and anyone else who contradicted his program, He turned peasant villages into re-education camps.

      You and the men and women who fought with you didn’t lose the war. You won it on the battle field.

      The war was lost on the political front, when the US middle class joined the Progressive left in opposing the war.

      The war was also lost because the government and military lost sight of the main element of war: kill and wreck the enemy until they can no longer fight. Escalation indeed. Idiocy. That foolishness prolonged the war until everyone got tired of it.

      If one enters war, enter to win. The US did not enter to win (unlike in Korea).

      Like

  10. I’ve studied Islam quite a bit, and in past years had hundreds of conversations with many dozens of Muslims during on-line debates about religion and science.

    At the very bottom, Islam is merely the vehicle for Arab racist domination. It’s whole raison d’etre is to make the world safe for Arab men.

    The religious part is all just window-dressing. It is there to make converts of non-Arabs, who then conspire in their own destruction.

    In Islam, the only important history in the world is the banal events in the late 6th/early7th century Hijaz. Converted peoples are caused to forget their own history and lionize the other.

    How many Pakistanis or Bangladeshis know of the advanced literate civilizations of their own past? The Indians would have lost their past, too, after 800 years of Islamic oppression had British archaeologists and linguists not recovered it during the Raj.

    Islam teaches that Arabs are the best of people (Qur’an 3:110), which is why god chose an Arab to be the best and last of prophets.

    Arabic is the language of heaven and is superior to any other language in subtlety and flexibility, which is why god chose it for his final revelation (in actuality, the Qur’an is a linguistic mess).

    Only Arabia is so sacred that no other religion can have a presence on its soil. The Haj to Mecca is nothing more than the worship of Arabic culture, while wearing Arabic clothes. Conquered Semitic people in the Near East (Chaldeans, Syriacs, and others) are forced to take on an Arab identity.

    Arabs are the first among equals in Islam. They are the chosen of god, after all. As native speakers of Arabic, they are the only people able to properly understand the perfect word of god in the Qur’an. They win all exegetical disputes on those grounds.

    Muslims are not a poor and marginalized people. They are dominant in their countries all across the middle east. They have been just as murderous when wealthy. They have exhibited the same murderous intolerance wherever they have gone.

    The Maghreb (north Africa) was once the home to thriving Jewish and Christian communities. No more. The Christians were obliterated by the 14th century through massacre and slave-taking.

    After 1000 years of persecution, the last 800,000 Jews were thrown out of North Africa after Israel won the 1948 war. The middle east outside of Israel is now Judenrein. And nearly empty of Christians.

    Destruction of other people by means of religious intolerance has been a Muslim program since the beginning.

    Islam is a racist, misogynist, imperialist, colonialist, program to the cruel benefit of Arabs, and uses conversion of other peoples to gain its advantage for cultural and racial dominance by Arabs.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Very well said! I long ago lost the patience to explain islam to people. Goes back to the old saw,”What do you tell a man with two black eyes? Nothing, he has been told twice and still can’t figure it out.”

      Like

    • I’d only note that it is easy to cast stones, but given the glass house we are in, we might sensibly refrain.
      There were secular regimes in Iraq, Syria and Turkey, seeking to link up with the Western society.
      Turkey was given the cold shoulder, while Iraq and Syria were destroyed under false pretenses. Islam is all the rejected and destitute people there had left to cling to.
      So I believe that demonizing Islam is silly, we’d be better advised to remove the beam from our own eye first and reflect on our own actions and their consequences.
      In particular, it seems tendentious to wax indignant about Islamic terror, while firmly ignoring the much larger toll inflicted by the western assaults on countries such as Libya, Syria or Iraq.
      I do not think there are lasting advantages from killing people, but rather that the US is building up a huge store of hatred. We used to be an example for the people of the area, open and friendly, educators rather than soldiers and mercenaries as they experience us now.
      I hope we alter course, but the latest assassination does not bode well.

      Like

      • etudiant, “Islam is all the rejected and destitute people there had left to cling to.
        So I believe that demonizing Islam is silly”

        Islamic societies were just as murderously intolerant when they were rich. The causally constant is not prosperity, but Islam.

        Calling out Islam for its vile history of mass murder and jihad warfare is not demonization.

        Muslim slave taking during the 10th-12th centuries depopulated the entire Mediterranean littoral of Europe. Muslims raided as far as Ireland and up into the Caucasus.

        The Crusades were the eventual military response to centuries of implacable Islamic hostility.

        Muslim slave-taking of Africans was more ferocious than that of the Portuguese and British, of far longer duration, and enslaved more people. They castrated young boys to use as sex toys.

        The West owes Islamic societies no deference. Syria destroyed itself. Saddam Hussein decided to play geopolitical hard ball by taking Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia, while Europe and the US needed Middle Eastern oil. Blockading access to needed raw materials is a causus belli.

        That and his nuclear ambitions (I’m not referring to the so-called “yellow cake” controversy) called down the fire.

        Iraq and Libya in particular gave protection to known terrorist leaders and sponsored terror attacks through proxies. They were no innocents.

        Muslim countries of the Middle East hate the US because we support Israel. All we’d need to is declare enmity against the Jews (as Hitler did) and the Muslim Middle East would be dancing with joy and singing our praises (as they did Hitler’s).

        So, I don’t credit your apologia at all.

        Like

      • Killing terrorists is the duty of all human beings. Defending terrorists makes you just as guilty as them. islam is the codification of evil and you keep defending it. Get the point yet? I doubt it.

        Like

  11. etudiant January 3, 2020 at 5:57 pm

    So I believe that demonizing Islam is silly, we’d be better advised to remove the beam from our own eye first and reflect on our own actions and their consequences.

    “Demonizing” Islam? The Koran says to KILL PEOPLE WHO LEAVE THE RELIGION. What could possibly be more demonic than that? No way I could begin to “demonize” people who do that, they are more demonic than anything I could say. And A THIRD OF MUSLIMS SAY THAT SHOULD HAPPEN! Why? Because the Koran says it, the Koran that you are laughably telling me not to “demonize” …

    But if that’s not demonic enough for you, how about another Islamic beauty, burying women up to the neck and then throwing small stones at their heads until they are dead. The small stones are to prolong the pain … and what did these women do? Oh, they cheated on their husbands. ALMOST HALF THE MUSLIMS SAY THAT SHOULD HAPPEN!

    Still not demonic enough for you? How about taking gay people up to the top of tall buildings and throwing them off?

    So please, cut the crap about “demonizing”. A “religion” that says it’s OK to stone women to death and to throw gays off off roofs IS ALREADY MORE DEMONIC THAN ANYTHING I COULD IMAGINE!!

    Wake up and smell the coffee, etudiant … you are defending a sick, vile death cult, and it’s not doing your reputation one bit of good.

    In particular, defending those barbaric 7th-Century practices totally destroys any moral authority you might have had to criticize the US. Why would anyone listen to someone foolish enough to defend those horrendous things?

    Look, I’m sorry to be so straightforward about this, but this airy-fairy handwaving of yours is extremely depressing. I find it hard to believe you actually believe what you are saying, but it seems you do.

    You should go explain your views to someone who hasn’t read the Koran cover to cover like I have. You might have some success passing your fantasies off as facts. Me … not so much …

    “Demonizing” … SMH …

    w.

    Like

      • Peter, FGM is nowhere mentioned in the Koran, or as far as I know, in the Hadiths or Sharia Law. While most of the practitioners are Muslims, most Muslims are not practitioners. So I agree that it is indeed a tribal practice and a very ugly one. But I’m not going to bust Islam for that.

        I will, however, bust Islam for the misogyny and the subjugation of women that allows such anti-female practices to continue.

        w.

        Like

        • Well, the sources quoted in this islmqa answer, al-Bukhaari, Muslim and Abu Dawood, are considered collections of authentic hadith.

          Like

          • Thanks, Peter. The Haditha of al-Bukhaari and Muslim bear only on male circumcision, not female. This is obvious because they talk in the same phrase of “shaving the mustache” …

            Abu Dawood records a saying of the Prophet, but is totally unimpressed by the transmission:

            Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah:

            A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (ﷺ) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.

            Abu Dawud said: It has been transmitted by ‘Ubaid Allah b. ‘Amr from’ Abd al-Malik to the same effect through a different chain.

            Abu Dawud said: It is not a strong tradition. It has been transmitted in mursal form (missing the link of the Companions)

            Abu Dawud said: Muhammad b. Hasan is obscure, and this tradition is weak.

            SOURCE

            Dawud says it is not a strong tradition, obscure, missing the link to the Companions, and weak …

            Me, I generally leave this question out of my discussions of Islam for the same reasons put forward by Dawud. The link between FGM and Islam is weak.

            I prefer to deal with things I can back up and prove, things that people can’t point to in order to discredit what I say.

            Thanks for the link,

            w.

            Like

  12. Willis, we’re not communicating well enough.
    I don’t dispute lots of the more egregious elements of some of the Islamic preaching, while noting that much of that reflects the ongoing efforts by the Saudis to support Madrasas world wide preaching the Wahabi sects version of Islam. They have created an ongoing generously supported system of mosques and schools teaching the most extreme versions of Islam, which the authorities in the West tolerate under the banner of religious freedom.
    The point I’m trying to highlight is that simultaneous actions by these governments to destroy a bunch of secular Arab regimes which had moderate laws and a less barbaric form of Islam now feeds these extremists, because the victims of our regime change efforts are left destitute, either at home or as refugees in countries such as Germany where they are unwanted and hard pressed to integrate. The Saudi sponsored mosques and madrasas are the only community these people have left. So my view is that our actions have fueled the rise of Islamic extremism. It was more fringe than mainstream, until we destroyed those societies.

    Islam has many mansions, Wahabism is just one and many others are much more open, recognizing Christians and Jews as ‘people of the book and therefore somewhat kindred. As I noted earlier, Iran still retains some of its Jewish community, unlike Saudi for example, so it seems the wrong party is getting pilloried here.
    More generally, it is indisputable that Islam has two main sects, Sunni and Shia, which have been at war with each other for over 1000 years. Saudi is Sunni, Iran is Shia, so they do not see eye to eye. I cannot see any benefit to the US from taking sides in this conflict. I don’t think you do either.

    Like

    • Thanks, Etudiant. I’m not talking about Wahabis, or modern Madrassahs, or Saudis.

      I’m talking about Islam itself, about the Koran and what it says, about the 1400 year history of Jihad by the sword, and about the vile 7th-Century barbaric practices blessed by the Koran which are still being observed today—female sex slavery, stoning, killing people who want to leave the cult, women as third-class citizens.

      Which you described, curiously as “demonization” …

      Next, you say:

      More generally, it is indisputable that Islam has two main sects, Sunni and Shia, which have been at war with each other for over 1000 years. Saudi is Sunni, Iran is Shia, so they do not see eye to eye. I cannot see any benefit to the US from taking sides in this conflict. I don’t think you do either.

      I find it perfectly fitting that after Muhammad died in the year 632, by Islamic tradition he had to be buried within 24 hours. And before he was buried, the Sunni-Shiite split had already happened.

      The subject of the Sunni-Shiite split was simple and ancient—who would be the new ruler? Who should succeed Mohammed as the “Caliph”, the head of Islam? The faction that would eventually become Sunnis, including Mohammed’s favorite wife Aisha, thought the new Caliph should be Aisha’s father and Mohammed’s father-in-law, a man named Abu Bakr.

      On the other side were the Shiites, literally the “Shiat Ali” or the party of Ali. They favored Mohammed’s son-in-law and cousin, Ali Ibn Abi Talib.

      In best 7th century fashion, of course, it turned into a small fight between the two factions … which led to a larger fight between the factions … and the party of Ali lost. The first three Caliphs were Sunnis.

      Eventually, after those three Caliphs had come and gone, Ali finally got his chance to be Caliph. It all should have gone well and fine, but hey, it was the Middle East and the seventh century, so after five years or so he was assassinated in 661. Not only that, but neither of Ali’s sons was allowed to take over as Caliph, which angrified the Shiites’ blood mightily.

      After Ali was assassinated the split was complete. The members of each side were confirmed in their belief that they were the only real true Moslems, and the other side were dangerous heretics whose ideas need to be suppressed.

      And of course, that ancient enmity has watered with blood and carefully tended for over a millennium because they are Muslims. As to the depth of the current antipathy, about a decade ago a Sunni man loaded a pickup truck with watermelons. He drove it to a Shiite village and offered watermelons at a very low price in the open-air market.

      And once he and his truck were surrounded by Shiite housewives wanting to get in on the bargain, and of course their kids, he blew up the bomb under the watermelons and leveled the marketplace …

      And a couple years ago, on one single day, a bomb in Baghdad killed fifty Sunnis, and a bomb at a Shiite shrine killed seventy Shiites … and the Western news media hardly noticed. The sad news in 2020 is that barbaric heartless brutal Islamic savagery is so common as to be unremarkable.

      And you call me pointing these kinds of things out “demonization”? Hang on. Sunnis are blowing up Shiite housewives and children, Shiites are doing the same, Muslims are throwing gay people off six-story buildings … and you claim I’m the bad guy because I’m “demonizing” them?

      So finally, to return to your question about taking sides, when the Sunnis and the Shiites are fighting, I just hope for the meteor strike.

      Anyhow, thanks for continuing the discussion, and I hope this has made my position clearer.

      w.

      Like

  13. It is also true that the Sunni/Shia cleavage was gradually being subsumed under Saddam, with intermarriage between adherents of the two, as the country was gradually building national consciousness. The destruction of the state and the subsequent state of anarchy fostered by the US led to the revival of the religious conflict.

    My point is that people, Muslim or otherwise, don’t naturally go off killing themselves or murdering others, it takes real despair and injustice to trigger that. We create those conditions when we destroy societies and do stuff like bombing weddings remotely via drone strikes. To believe that this will not come back to haunt us is to be oblivious to all that history teaches us. Likewise, the idea that we should feel free to wander around killing individuals who oppose our policies is hubris in the extreme. Nemesis usually follows.

    Liked by 1 person

    • etudiant January 5, 2020 at 3:14 am Edit

      It is also true that the Sunni/Shia cleavage was gradually being subsumed under Saddam, with intermarriage between adherents of the two, as the country was gradually building national consciousness. The destruction of the state and the subsequent state of anarchy fostered by the US led to the revival of the religious conflict.

      I’d have to see some evidence for that claim.

      My point is that people, Muslim or otherwise, don’t naturally go off killing themselves or murdering others, it takes real despair and injustice to trigger that.

      And my point is that Muslims kill people whether there is injustice or not, and have done so for 1400 years. For example, every one of the 9/11 bombers was from the wealthy class. Bin Laden was rich.

      It appears that you missed the message of the Pew poll of Muslims above. HALF of the Muslims in the world want to KILL adulterers. A third of them want to KILL people who leave the religion.

      And they have done so for 1400 years, starting before Muhammad’s death. I pointed out above that Muhammed himself led his raiders into an adjacent village, defeated the villagers in battle, killed every surviving male with pubic hair, and took the women as sex slaves.

      And you can go all boo-hoo and claim it was because of, what was it … “real despair and injustice”, but that’s nuts. The Muslims in that raid were not acting because of “real despair and injustice”.

      They were SPREADING real despair and injustice.

      We create those conditions when we destroy societies and do stuff like bombing weddings remotely via drone strikes. To believe that this will not come back to haunt us is to be oblivious to all that history teaches us. Likewise, the idea that we should feel free to wander around killing individuals who oppose our policies is hubris in the extreme. Nemesis usually follows.

      Oh, please. What history teaches us is that Muslims are violent as hell, no matter where or when. Let me go over “what history teaches us” again:

      The first Islamic jihad started in 634, Muhammad was just two years dead. At that time in the Mideast, there were Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and a host of other peoples.

      By 638, they had conquered Jerusalem … and I’m sure there were Jewish “etudiants” in the background saying “We Jews made the rise of Muslim extremism happen” even back then …

      By 641, they had conquered most of the Levant including the ancient city of Alexandria, and all of Persia. One decade.

      By 652, only two decades after Muhammad’s death, they had a navy and started maritime jihad. They beat the Roman fleet … with some Roman etudiant mumbling in the background about how it was all the Romans’ fault that there was Muslim extremism.

      In 711, they conquered Spain. Contemporary accounts record someone named “Estudiante” saying “Somos culpable para el extremismo de los Moros” …

      In 846 they invaded Rome, destroying ancient churches and tombs. Of course, some of the Italian estudiants donned sackcloth and ashes and claimed that the destruction of the churches in Rome was their own fault.

      That is the INHERENT NATURE OF ISLAM. They didn’t do that because people bombed weddings. They didn’t do that because they were poor and oppressed.

      They did it because that is exactly what the Koran commands—to spread Islam by the sword through violent Jihad.

      So no, Etudiante, the violence of Islam is NOT the fault of the West. And it is NOT the fault of poverty, or of oppression. It has lasted for 1400 years, and shows no sign of abating. Muslim terrorists have killed a quarter million in the last two decades … and you want to blame that on the West?

      Seriously?

      Then why, out of all of the poor and oppressed people in the world, is it ONLY the Muslims who have racked up such an impressive score?

      I’ll tell you what adds to Muslim violence …

      … folks like yourself wringing your hands and claiming it’s all the fault of the baaaad white men. The Muslim terrorists love that shit, it gets them off the hook. They can say “Sunnis are bombing Shiites ’cause we’re poor and we’ve been done wrong, look, even the white people say it’s because they’ve been krool to us” …

      … bad news on that front, Etudiante. It IS their fault, no matter how much you flagellate yourself with what seems to be an endless supply of white guilt.

      Muslims were killing people at a rate of knots for more than a thousand years before there were Americans. They kill each other. They kill when they’re poor. They kill women who cheat on their husband. They kill their neighbors all around the world. They kill when they’re rich. They kill women for the crime of having been raped. They kill gay people by throwing them off of roofs. They kill Christians in the Philippines where it’s all brown people. They kill in endlessly new and inventive ways. And in an action of endless evil, they even kill their own damn daughters for falling in love with the wrong guy … and you claim that’s somehow it’s our fault? Seriously? Fourteen centuries of endless Islamic murder is our fault?

      I’d laugh at your level of self-hatred if it were not so tragic …

      It’s not complex. We don’t have to search for motives They’ve killed all of those people in all those countries for all those years for one simple reason.

      The Koran tells them who to kill, and how to kill, and so they kill, century after century, in new and inventive ways. A quarter-million dead in the last two decades should give you a clue that these are not Buddhists with funny hats …

      Best regards to you,

      w.

      Like

      • Willis? I love your writing, you need to stop wasting it on this muslim terrorist apologist. You have more important issues to apply your time to. Just sayin’.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Thanks, hotel. Here’s the thing. I’m never writing to the person I’m writing to.

          Yeah, sounds nuts I know, but here’s why.

          I write for the lurkers. For every person who actually comments, there are ten who are “lurking”, reading and following what’s going on without commenting.

          And their minds are often NOT made up … whereas those I’m actually addressing far too often made up their minds decades ago.

          So I’ll continue to write, even though Etudiante may or may not change his mind.

          Best to you,

          w.

          ===

          “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?”

          Attributed to John Maynard Keynes

          ===

          Legend says that while conferring with Roosevelt at Quebec, Churchill sent Keynes a cable reading, “Am coming around to your point of view.” His Lordship replied, “Sorry to hear it. Have started to change my mind.“

          ===

          Liked by 1 person

  14. Willis,
    I too write for the lurkers as well as yourself and I believe that your obvious demonization of Islam is actively harmful. Fact remains that there are generally peaceful Islamic societies with stable social structures, trying to manage their problems without interfering with others. It is of course easy to go to the record of any militant society and find massive atrocities and evils, just look at our recent colonial history in the Philippines. Or that of Germany, France, Italy and England in Africa. Islam has plenty of bloody company in the western Christian community,
    In the here and now however, the real impetus for our discussion is that we decided to attack among others Iraq, Syria and Libya, destroying those societies and leaving destitution and chaos in our wake. I believe these attacks were deeply wrong, hugely harmful to our moral and economic standing world wide and ultimately pointless, simply sucking our republic into an endless quagmire of bloodshed. The immediate effect of our actions was that the only effective surviving organizations were the most fanatic and dedicated religious ones. They are not our friends, but it seems a little less than honest to complain if the victims of our aggression try to fight back by whatever limited means they still retain. Why are we there is a legitimate question, especially as the bills of blood and treasure keep piling up.
    Immediately after WW2, when the US was at its zenith of relative power, our military and political leadership all agreed ‘never fight a land war in Asia’. We’ve ignored that more recently to our detriment. A useful corollary here might be ‘ never get involved in religious conflicts’. For our country to get roped into the Sunni/Shia conflict by breaking Iran, the heart of the Shia community, may be the dream of Saudi Arabia’s bin Salman, but there is nothing but downside in it for us.

    Like

    • I agree that the interventions in Iraq, Syria and Libya, as well as Afghanistan, were major mistakes. However, your characterisation of stable muslim countries is false. Just to start with, you ignore the relentless persecution of non-muslim religions: depending on the country, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains – not to mention agnostics, atheists and free-thinkers. No Jews, of course, because they were all expelled 70 years ago. As for blaming the imperative to jihad on Western interventions, you really need to read Robert Spencer’s “A History of Jihad: from Muhammad to ISIS” and Raymond Ibrahim’s “Sword and Scimitar”, to see how aggressive jihad has been a constant aspect of islam for nearly 1,400 years.

      Like

      • Stable Muslim societies include Turkey, Egypt, Saudi, Iran, Pakistan, Morocco, Algeria and Indonesia among others. Do note that most of these had to shake off colonial rule and have shaky leadership structures still, but they are adequately stable. Relentless persecution of non muslim religions is certainly not true in Iran, where Judaism and Christianity are recognized officially, nor in Indonesia, where are six official religions among many others. Saudi surely is far more extreme, as is Pakistan, but they are not the norm other than in conflict zones, which we have so foolishly expanded.

        The whole narrative of a narrow minded Islam seems based on selective history with inconvenient facts omitted. When Christian Spain expelled their Jewish citizens, it was the Muslim Sultan in Istanbul who gave them welcome and refuge. Aggressive jihad died with the failure of the second Ottoman assault on Vienna. Since then, the Muslim community has been mostly a punching bag for the various western colonial powers and their hangers on. We should not be surprised if there is opposition to that and our country should surely avoid picking up the colonial mantle.

        Like

        • etudiant, thanks for your comment. You say:

          etudiant January 6, 2020 at 6:26 am

          Stable Muslim societies include Turkey, Egypt, Saudi, Iran, Pakistan, Morocco, Algeria and Indonesia among others. Do note that most of these had to shake off colonial rule and have shaky leadership structures still, but they are adequately stable. Relentless persecution of non muslim religions is certainly not true in Iran, where Judaism and Christianity are recognized officially, nor in Indonesia, where are six official religions among many others.

          My friend, you get your own opinions, but not your own facts.

          Christianity CRACKDOWN: Horrifying account of ‘extreme persecution’ suffered in Iran
          A VICTIM of Christian persecution in Iran has given an account of the “extreme persecution” she suffered by Iran’s theocratic regime.
          By CHARLOTTE DAVIS
          PUBLISHED: 16:00, Sat, May 25, 2019 | UPDATED: 16:01, Sat, May 25, 2019

          Maryam Rostampour reveals ‘persecution’ she suffered in Iran

          Religious freedom activists met with politicians in Washington DC this week to discuss the escalating war against religious minorities in Iran. Among the attendees was Maryam Rostampour who was sent to one of Iran’s most infamous prisons and sentenced to execution by hanging after promoting the religion in Iran. Ms Rostampour told the audience: “The Iranian Government arrested and imprisoned us because of our Evangelical and Christian faith.

          So no, Iran is NOT a poster child for tolerance … how about Indonesia?

          CHRISTIANITY CRACKDOWN: Fury as churches SHUT DOWN due to RED TAPE
          OFFICIALS in Indonesia have closed down three Christian churches for unspecified “administrative reasons” as Muslim communities in parts of the country push for stronger Islamic laws.
          By HARVEY GAVIN
          PUBLISHED: 21:56, Wed, Oct 3, 2018 | UPDATED: 21:56, Wed, Oct 3, 2018

          Authorities shut the places of worship on the island of Sumatra without providing any explanation, the Communion of Churches in Indonesia (PGI) said.

          and

          Why Indonesia’s Christian Diaspora Fears Going Home
          Published in East Asia Forum
          Phelim Kine
          Deputy Director, Asia Division

          Three undocumented Indonesian immigrants have taken sanctuary in a New Jersey church to avoid deportation from the United States. The men say they’re afraid to go back to Indonesia because being members of the country’s Christian minority makes them vulnerable to persecution.

          The three men’s immigration claims have shone a light on the worsening religious intolerance endured by religious minorities in Muslim-majority Indonesia. Indonesia has long been seen as a religiously moderate country and has an official national motto of ‘unity in diversity’. But over the past two decades a combination of discriminatory laws and growing intolerance from some Sunni Muslims has resulted in harassment, intimidation and violence against religious minorities. Successive Indonesian governments have failed to confront this intolerance, which has only emboldened those who victimise religious minorities.

          You go on:

          Saudi surely is far more extreme, as is Pakistan, but they are not the norm other than in conflict zones, which we have so foolishly expanded.

          Umm … see above.

          The whole narrative of a narrow minded Islam seems based on selective history with inconvenient facts omitted.

          I say again, when half the adherents of a cult want women to be killed for adultery, and a third want anyone leaving the religion to be killed, that is “narrow minded”! Nothing to do with “selective history”. Nothing to do with “inconvenient facts omitted”! Wanting to kill people for leaving your death cult is hardly “broad minded” …

          When Christian Spain expelled their Jewish citizens, it was the Muslim Sultan in Istanbul who gave them welcome and refuge.

          Well … sorta. They went all over.

          However, you are correct that Bayezit II welcomed them to Turkey.

          If that one single example out of a long, long history of Muslims killing Jews is supposed to impress me, I fear you failed. Consider a modern example:

          Egypt’s minister of religious endowments in an interview quoted a verse from the Koran about killing Jews. Asked by the interviewer whether he would “visit Israel with a Palestinian visa,” the minister said: “This is premature. Let’s wait until it happens. However, we hope that the words of the Prophet Muhammad will be fulfilled: ‘Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jews will hide behind the rocks and the trees, but the rocks and the trees will say: Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'”

          You then say:

          Aggressive jihad died with the failure of the second Ottoman assault on Vienna.

          The Battle Of Vienna was in 1683. For the first time, after a thousand years of Islamic expansion by the sword, a Christian army defeated the Muslim advances. However, this was far from the end of Jihad.

          In 1784, Imam Sheikh Mansur, a Chechen warrior and Muslim mystic, led a coalition of Muslim Caucasian tribes from throughout the Caucasus in a jihad against the Russians.

          Nor were all Jihads against the west. The Saudi Salafi sheiks were convinced that it was their religious mission to wage Jihad against all other forms of Islam. In 1801 the Saudi Wahhabists under Abdul Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud attacked and captured the holy Shia cities of Karbala and Najaf in Iraq, massacred the Shiites and destroyed the tombs of the Shiite Imam Husayn and Ali bin Abu Talib. In 1802 they overtook Taif. In 1803 and 1804 the Wahhabis overtook Mecca and Medina. Charming folks, the Salafists, and they’ve maintained that cheery disposition right up until today.

          The Fula or Fulani jihads, were a series of independent but loosely connected events across West Africa between the late 17th century and European colonization, in which Muslim Fulas took control of various parts of the region. Between 1750 and 1900, one-third to two-thirds of the entire population of the Fulani jihad states consisted of slaves.

          The Cham Muslims under Katip Suma declared a Jihad against the Vietnamese invasion of Champa in 1832 under Emperor Minh Mang.

          During the 1870s, European initiatives against the slave trade caused an economic crisis in northern Sudan, precipitating the rise of Mahdist forces. Muhammad Ahmed Al Mahdi was a religious leader, who proclaimed himself the Mahdi—the prophesied redeemer of Islam who will appear at end times—in 1881, and declared a Jihad against Ottoman rulers. He declared all “Turks” infidels and called for their execution

          In response to the Hazara uprising of 1892, the Afghan Emir Abdur Rahman Khan declared a “Jihad” against the Shiites. Until the 20th century, some Hazaras were still kept as slaves by the Pashtuns.

          On November 14, 1914, in Constantinople, capital of the Ottoman Empire, the religious leader Sheikh-ul-Islam declared Jihad on behalf of the Ottoman government, urging Muslims all over the world—including in the Allied countries—to take up arms against Britain.

          Jihad was declared obligatory and a religious duty for all Chinese Muslims against Japan after 1937 during the Second Sino-Japanese War.

          In modern times, Boko Haram (which means “Western Ways Are Forbidden”) has declared Jihad against Nigeria, Bin Laden declared Jihad against “Jews and Crusaders”, the Islamic Jihad sect in Palestine has declared Jihad against … well … everybody …

          And of course we have ISIS, which has explicitly stated that they are engaged in a Jihad to create a worldwide Muslim Caliphate.

          You get the point, I’m sure. Jihad is not just some idea that died out long ago. It never died, and it is alive and well as I write this.

          Why has it lasted so long? Because it is specifically required in the Koran. Sura 2:216 says

          “Jihâd is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.

          So even though a Muslim wants to be peaceful and doesn’t like war, they MUST support Jihad.

          And regarding Jews, the Koran says inter alia:

          O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

          Charming.

          As I’ve said many times, my issue is NOT with Muslims. It is with the Koran, and until there is some Islamic Reformation, it will continue to be a problem.

          You close by saying:

          Since then, the Muslim community has been mostly a punching bag for the various western colonial powers and their hangers on. We should not be surprised if there is opposition to that and our country should surely avoid picking up the colonial mantle.

          Mmm … the Western colonial powers took over land regardless of the religion of the inhabitants. However, that started coming apart after WWI, and died for good after WWII. Claiming that e.g. Boko Haram calling for Jihad against Nigeria is somehow a result of colonialism is revisionist history. Muslims have called for Jihad from the time when Muhammed led the battles in person right up until today.

          Yes, they’ve waxed and waned as you point out. But that was not because the Muslims suddenly became peaceful. It was because they got their asses kicked badly by the Christians, who got fed up with endless attacks. But it certainly didn’t stop Jihad …

          Finally, you say that the US should not “pick up the colonial mantle”. It’s totally unclear what you mean by this. We’re not colonizing anyone. However, we’re opposed to Jihadists of any stripe.

          Finally, if as you claim the idea of Muslim Holy War, AKA Jihad, is dead … then how do you explain Muslims killing a quarter-million people in the last two decades? 58,000 US soldiers died in Vietnam, the modern Muslim Jihad has killed five times that many, and you think that Islam has somehow given up on Holy War against the West?

          This is simply the continuation of their 1,400-year struggle to defeat the west and establish Muslim world domination.

          My best regards to you,

          w.

          Like

          • Willis,
            Just a few points:
            The US picking up the colonial mantle– we dominate the Arab economies via the petro dollar and we veto their governments, not sure that is colonialism, perhaps a cousin?
            A quarter million people killed by Muslims in the past two decades really does ask for a bit of context.
            Where was this and is it really religious in origin or related to internal revolts against misrule? I’d note that the Biafra revolt alone caused over a million people to die of starvation in Nigeria, even excluding the military casualties, but no one is blamed for the disaster. Meanwhile, the corruption and abuses that led to that war are pervasive and Boko Haram is just the latest reaction to it. The willingness of the industrialized societies to condone massive abuses, in Africa especially, is leading to extremist revolts. Islam may admittedly catalyze that, because the doctrine admits violence in the pursuit of justice.
            Re the Muslim world being the punching bag, you note that religion was peripheral for the colonial powers.
            That is quite true, the aim was to extract wealth by whatever means, so the Islamic states were mostly left alone, they did not have much wealth to take. Only the Ottoman empire, ‘the ‘sick man of Europe’ was subject to periodic amputations, more for social and territorial reasons than for new colonies. Still a punching bag though, as were the Muslim states of North Africa.
            Given the historical baggage, I don’t doubt that both Christians as well as Jews are widely persecuted in Africa and Asia, no matter what the law says. In the near war environment of the Middle East as well as in SE Asia, where there is a long simmering war against the Muslims in the Philippines, the lives of adherents of those faiths are threatened. That issue will not be solved by bombing, but by reestablishing strong civil government which can ensure its citizens are protected.
            I don’t hold any brief for the Islamic homophobia you highlight, although we should perhaps remember that
            similar laws were the norm in the US until the latter part of the 20th century. Similarly, there continue to be plenty of ‘indecent exposure’ laws on our books, quite widely interpreted ( remembering a case last year where an airline passenger was refused boarding because of her clothing), so there is no bright line here either.

            Like

  15. etudiant January 5, 2020 at 5:59 pm

    Willis,
    I too write for the lurkers as well as yourself and I believe that your obvious demonization of Islam is actively harmful. Fact remains that there are generally peaceful Islamic societies with stable social structures, trying to manage their problems without interfering with others.

    “Interfering with others”? That’s only a tiny part of the problem. Start with making women into third-class citizens, without rights, able to be divorced at will, their word only worth half a man’s word in court, and subject to being killed for being raped or for loving the wrong guy. Where is the Islamic country where that is not true?

    And please, can I ask you to stop with the handwaving? If there are such societies as you claim, NAME THEM.

    And claiming that they have “stable social structures” … say what? Italy under Mussolini had a “stable social structure”, and that didn’t stop them from horrendously bad actions. Muslims keep their structures “stable” by doing things like throwing gay people off the roof … sure prevents Stonewall-type demonstrations, makes for a stable society …

    w.

    PS—When ~ HALF of the adherents of a death cult think women should be killed for adultery, and a third think people leaving the cult should be killed, it’s no longer possible to “demonize” them.

    They’ve done it to themselves already.

    Like

  16. Stable Muslim societies, that is the point. Their way to get a stable society is to eliminate the opposition. Islam comes in, other cultures and religions die out. That sums up history. The exception to that is the intra-faith warfare (the first battle was in 656). Muslim on muslim. The Koran is the same for all, but their interpretations are different. Jihad is not dead.

    Jihad started after the first 13 years of Islam, and has been a pillar of Islam ever since. The ideas have always been there, yet there is some truth that thought about jihad has been influenced by the West’s colonial influence. The Raj in India, the French in Algeria, the Russians in Afghanistan. And then there is the US.

    This book details the rise of Salafi-Jihadism, “Salafi-Jihadism: The History of an Idea” by Shiraz Maher. The view of these Muslims is that democracy is blasphemous. Only Allah can make laws and those laws are Sharia. The war on terror has been fighting salafi-jihadis, by one name or another. Is it winning? Territory can be reclaimed, but the philosophy can’t be killed and it just gets stronger. The US can get the territory back for the others who live there, yet they are muslim too, and believe the same things (although they may not agree on the means to achieve them). Is that winning? Trying to start up a democracy in a culture that neither understands it nor wants it, is that a winning move? I cannot see any good way to undo the mistakes of history. So now what?

    etudiant says: “I cannot see any benefit to the US from taking sides in this conflict.” Other than Iran being a threat to the US, you mean.

    Like

    • I’d noted that Iran specifically includes Judaism and Christianity in its recognized religions, so I don’t think it right to claim that the aim is to eliminate them. More generally, Islamic rule very much made allowance for ‘people of the Book’, as evidenced by the multicultural components of the Caliphates or more recently Grenada before the reconquest.
      I do think it unsurprising that the destruction of the secular states our actions and those of the colonial regimes beforehand has created much more narrowly focused and much less tolerant religious societies. These too will eventually adjust to reality, just as the Sultans did before or as the Chinese Communists did with private enterprise. But trying to suppress them by force just strengthens their convictions, which is not the desired outcome.
      Separately, you see Iran as a threat to the US??
      We overthrew their elected government and installed a dictator subservient to us, shot down one of their scheduled airliners filled with civilians on a regular flight and have tried to strangle their economy.What have they done to us to deserve that? I’m hard pressed to see anything they did to the US, other than to reject the dictator we installed. Meanwhile, Saudi leaders paid for the 9/11 participants, but that gets a free pass. Possibly that makes sense, but not to me.
      The US is at its best when it strives to be ‘the shining city on a hill’ , rather than a source of bombing and bloodshed. We should be listening to the better angels of our nature, not killing people who believe differently from us.

      Like

      • etudiant January 7, 2020 at 6:11 am

        I’d noted that Iran specifically includes Judaism and Christianity in its recognized religions, so I don’t think it right to claim that the aim is to eliminate them. More generally, Islamic rule very much made allowance for ‘people of the Book’, as evidenced by the multicultural components of the Caliphates or more recently Grenada before the reconquest.

        So your claim is that “DEATH TO AMERICA” is just some random bunch of syllables with no meaning?

        In any case, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in December 2000 called Israel a “cancerous tumour” that should be removed from the region.

        In 2005 he emphasized that “Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people”.

        In 2005 President Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be “wiped off the map”.

        On 15 August 2012, during a meeting with veterans of the Iran–Iraq War, Ayatollah Khamenei said that he was confident that “the fake Zionist (regime) will disappear from the landscape of geography.”

        So please, stop with the sycophantic claims. Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map, and its leaders have made that so crystal clear that you’d have to be an intellectual to deny it.

        I do think it unsurprising that the destruction of the secular states our actions and those of the colonial regimes beforehand has created much more narrowly focused and much less tolerant religious societies.

        Islam has been intolerant for 1,400 years. It has fought with and tried to eliminate other religions for that time, and has been hated around the planet for its endless wars of Jihad.

        These too will eventually adjust to reality, just as the Sultans did before or as the Chinese Communists did with private enterprise. But trying to suppress them by force just strengthens their convictions, which is not the desired outcome.

        I see. So we should just roll over and play dead, because heaven knows, if we try to use force to defend ourselves from the endless Islamic onslaught that wouldn’t be right.

        Separately, you see Iran as a threat to the US??

        A threat, yes. An existential threat, no. As I said, they’re serious about “DEATH TO AMERICA”. I don’t see how they could be much clearer about that, and I don’t see why you endlessly try to deny Iran’s ambitions.

        We overthrew their elected government and installed a dictator subservient to us, shot down one of their scheduled airliners filled with civilians on a regular flight and have tried to strangle their economy. What have they done to us to deserve that?

        Let’s unpack that a bit, OK? Yes, in 1953, before most Iranians were born, the CIA overthrew the government. This lasted until Ayatollah Khomeini led a counter-revolution and established a totalitarian dictatorship. And you are right—the Iranian people didn’t deserve either of those. I’d hold, however, that Khomeini’s revolution led to endless suffering of the populace, while the previous CIA overthrow led to a brief flowering of the Persian genius and general freedom for the populace.

        Yes, we accidentally shot down a civilian airliner. President Reagan issued a formal apology. The matter went to the International Court of Justice, wherein a negotiated settlement the US paid $$213,103.45 to the family of each passenger.

        Not sure what else you think we should have done.

        Finally, we didn’t just put sanctions on Iran at random. Nothing could be further from the truth. The first sanctions were put in place by Jimmy Carter in response to the Iranians overrunning the US Embassy (which is an invasion of US soil) and taking 52 Americans hostage.

        The second sanctions by the United States were imposed under Ronald Reagan in 1987 because of Iran’s actions from 1981-1987 against the U.S. and other shipping vessels in the Persian Gulf and support for terrorism.

        The third sanctions were not put on by the US. They were imposed in December 2006 pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1737 after Iran refused to comply with UNSC Resolution 1696 which demanded that Iran halt its uranium enrichment program. Given their endless threats to both Israel and the US, this was and is still seen as a huge threat.

        I’m hard pressed to see anything they did to the US, other than to reject the dictator we installed.

        Seriously? Well, how about the following.

        In 1979 they took 52 Americans hostage, overran the US Embassy, and killed any Iranians who were in the Embassy records as having worked with the Americans.

        In 1983 they conspired with Hezbollah to bomb the US Marine Barracks in Beirut.

        In 1988, they severely damaged the USS Samuel B. Roberts with a mine..

        In 2000, they were involved along with Al Qaeda in the bombing of the USS Cole.

        In 2003 they were complicit in the Riyadh compound bombings.

        In 2011, Iran was responsible for the bombing of two US Embassies, in Kenya and Tanzania.

        In addition, Iran has given endless sponsorship and support of terrorism against the US, Israel, and all of Iran’s opponents. In 1995, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard held a conference with worldwide organizations accused of engaging in terrorism including the Japanese Red Army, the Armenian Secret Army, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, the Iraqi Da’wah Party, the Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain and Hezbollah in Beirut for the sole purpose of providing training to these organizations, in order to help in the destabilization of Gulf States and aid assistance to militants in these countries to replace the existing governments with Iran-like regimes.

        In addition, Iran has provided training, monetary support, and weapons to Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

        Meanwhile, Saudi leaders paid for the 9/11 participants, but that gets a free pass. Possibly that makes sense, but not to me.

        The Iranian Government has taken endless action, direct and indirect, conventional and terrorist, against the US as well as many other Western Countries.

        The Saudi Government has not. Yes, individual Saudis were participants in 9/11. And some individual Saudi leaders supported them.

        But Iran is recognized around the globe as one of the major, if not THE major, source of state-supported terrorism … and the Saudis are not.

        I’m kinda surprised that you can’t see the difference, but it goes along with your general willingness to blame the West for any and everything that Iran has done …

        The US is at its best when it strives to be ‘the shining city on a hill’, rather than a source of bombing and bloodshed. We should be listening to the better angels of our nature, not killing people who believe differently from us.

        Get real. If one of your neighbors in your town took as his slogan “DEATH TO ETUDIANTE”, and chanted it at every public meeting in your town, and then proceeded to pay people to attack you, and pay people and give them bombs to kill your children and your relatives, I greatly doubt that you’d be giving airy speeches about shining cities on a hill …

        In exactly the same way, Iran has taken as its slogan “DEATH TO AMERICA”, and is paying people to attack the US and to bomb, wound, and kill our soldiers.

        WTF do you expect us to do? Blow in Soleimani’s ear and tickle his tummy? Let him continue to spread death everywhere he goes?

        Out here in the real world, where it appears you seldom venture, sometimes the only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun … and since clearly the good man with a gun isn’t you, I guess the US will have to continue in that role.

        Do I like that? Not one bit. I’d far prefer the shining city on the hill … but I like it far better than the alternative where the good guys put down their guns and the bad guys don’t.

        And make no mistake—the Iranian mullahs are NOT among the good guys.

        Sunny today, my best regards to you,

        w.

        Like

  17. etudiant January 7, 2020 at 7:29 am

    Willis,
    Just a few points:
    The US picking up the colonial mantle– we dominate the Arab economies via the petro dollar and we veto their governments, not sure that is colonialism, perhaps a cousin?

    If we could “veto” the Iranian government, we would. But we can’t. As to “dominating” them via the fact that they sit on billions and billions of dollars of the world’s most valuable resource … say what? I have no clue what that means.

    A quarter million people killed by Muslims in the past two decades really does ask for a bit of context.
    Where was this and is it really religious in origin or related to internal revolts against misrule?

    STOP! STOP WITH THE ENDLESS EXCUSES FOR ISLAMIC MURDER!!!

    Dear heavens, is there no end to your sycophancy?

    I did all the work to put the database into a form that you can use. I gave you the link to the database. I gave you an example of the database. If you wish to sift through it for whatever meaningless excuses you can find, go for it.

    But I’m not going to listen to you claim on one hand that America shouldn’t do anything when Americans are killed and American interests are attacked by Muslim terrorists, and then wave your hands and justify THE DEATHS OF A QUARTER MILLION PEOPLE AT MUSLIM HANDS.

    So go for it, analyze the data, and report back with what your analysis actually shows.

    But me, I’m tired of you endlessly brown-nosing a bunch of murderous thugs. I’m gonna pass until you actually do the analysis and have hard data.

    At that point, we can discuss whether or not some portion of the 250,000 dead people deserved to die in the lofty opinion of etudiante …

    And until then? I’m cashing in my chips. I’ve done all I can here.

    My very best regards to you, and truly, my friend, your hatred of America and your support of rabid killers is … well, I’ll call it “disturbing” and leave it at that.

    w.

    Like

  18. I’m not so much into shining cities on the hill.
    http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Religion/John%20Winthrop.htm
    The Puritans made a barbaric totalitarian state, similar in some ways to that which we object to with those who want a Muslim state. That particular history is passé, we have moved on.

    With Islam on the other hand there are active groups who wish to force everyone back to the good old days, the first three generations of Islam. Not everybody, not always, and as examples there is “Grenada before the reconquest” and some of the middle east countries until very recently. I don’t see how blaming the US or The West solves anything. So what to do?

    The US has tried to stay out of wars before and then got involved later anyway, in a bigger harder problem.

    “We should be listening to the better angels of our nature, not killing people who believe differently from us.”
    Human nature does not have many better angels, not ours, not theirs. Someone said something about the head of a pin. And then there is self-defense. Both sides claim that right. So there you are.

    What would you do?

    Like

    • Well, I might be joining you at the stake if the Puritans were still in charge, so no argument there, but the larger vision, that America should strive to be an example to be emulated, is one that still seems very valid to me. To my eyes, instances such as the Fulbright Scholarships or the American University in Beirut were the kind of initiatives that yield lasting benefits to our society and to the recipients, unlike military actions.

      Re staying out of wars, although both Washington as well as Adams were very cautious about foreign interventions, such caution has not been much in fashion lately. However, its virtues are becoming more apparent as we consider the lives ruined and the wealth wasted by futile foreign wars.

      Sadly, much or perhaps even most of the world is very poorly run, with massive abuses of the body politic by greedy and blinkered leadership. That creates the basis for religious zealotry and revolutionary upheavals. Our record of resolving those issues, even with direct military intervention, is very spotty at best. It was so before WW1, as Gen Smedley Butler eloquently testified, was so in Viet Nam and it continues today, visible in our Afghanistan experience.
      So for places such as Afghanistan or Syria or Iraq, I’d get out. We’ve done our best there and it was not at all helpful, so we will have a huge bill of hatred and ill will in any case. If that results in extremist governments there, we’ve lots of experience dealing with those.

      Right now, the main effect of our efforts is to create a huge professional military and an almost unaccountable executive, while also eroding the barriers between our wars and our society. Police SWAT teams ans MRAPs are now the norm, ‘posse comitatus’ is defunct and ‘anti terrorism’ laws are removing both privacy as well as civil liberties. These costs of our foreign wars need to be considered and imho are prohibitive.

      Like

      • I suspect that you are mixing cause and effect, is it the poor government that causes the religious zealotry? or is it the other way around?

        Like

        • My guess is that poor governance is the catalyst, most religions claim to hold ‘the truth’ shared only by the faithful, but as long as there is respect, people don’t usually slaughter each other. Once that respect is removed though, by abusive behavior or manifest injustice, things go south.
          Historically those kind of breaks end with draconian laws or outright extinction. so they are very much to be avoided. Note that religion does not have to be involved, for instance the Tutsi/Hutu slaughter was purely ethnic afaik.

          Like

      • Thaks, etudiant. I, like you, oppose futile foreign wars and think that we should get our soldiers out of the Mideast. During the campaign, President Trump described such military adventurism as “wars over sand”, and I hope he can hold on to that ideal.

        w.

        Like

      • There is much to agree with there. War is a big deal, so some solid rational thought should precede engaging in one. Sadly, those times are not the most rational. Too many of our wars could have been avoided if political solutions had been seriously tried before it was too late. 20-20 hindsight in 2020 shows this to usually be the case. That is, for those who actually look into the history instead of accepting the dogma.

        I had to look up MRAP. Cool. I want one for the next time (as if) I visit Mexico City or South Africa.
        But SWAT teams used at home? There was the “Straight Outta Compton” movie — is that what the future looks like? It’s hard not to be cynical. “America should strive to be an example to be emulated.” That is a noble goal.

        I just picked up an interesting book. I haven’t read it yet, just a bit of it. About Burning Man, or its principles, or its philosophy, or something. I don’t know yet. One chapter title: “Diversity is Complicated”. It’s pretty wordy, yet it looks like a fun read. Here is a taste.

        in 381 BC, Plato wrote the Republic, a blueprint for a truly just and benevolent city. It probably wouldn’t have worked, and nobody’s even tried. Burning Man has very little in common with the Republic — it aggressively disagrees with many of Plato’s premises — and yet it has done more to actually create a city in line with some aspects of the Republic than anyone before, even though Plato’s disciples had a two-thousand-year head start.
        But if you were to try creating the city described in the Republic, the very first thing you’d have to do would be to get selective about who you let in: people couldn’t like the wrong kind of art or music. They couldn’t dress the way they wanted or spend their time the way they liked.
        […]
        [but nobody has] even come close to proposing a model that a significant number of people in the world might actually choose to live in of their own free will. They all start with the premise that to get a perfect world, you have to twist people into the right shape.
        […]
        [Burning Man] works as well as it does largely because it has abandoned the notion of being a utopia and has instead focused on other aspects of the human experience. Not “how do we make life fair and perfect?” but how do we give people opportunities to be authentic, and connected, and expressive (among other things)?
        Utopias, it turns out, are for suckers.

        from “The Scene That Became Cities: What Burning Man Philosophy Can Teach Us About Building Better Communities” by Caveat Magister (Benjamin Wachs). 344 pages.

        Like

        • I like the ‘Burning Man’ concept, it is totally American to let each pursue happiness in their own way, while respecting those around us who have different aims.
          Considering the US is blessed with abundant resources and sheltered by two oceans, with friendly neighbors, we have the essentials to make that happen here.
          There are of course challenges, such as who bears the burden of organizing the water, sewer, garbage removal and such on a sustainable basis, but these seem pretty manageable.
          Maybe we should start a ‘Burning Man’ political movement, it would have more appeal than what we get currently.

          Like

  19. Willis – you base some of your article on an anonymous partisan website logging atrocities by Islam – did you check out their claims? A very quick look at news sites reporting those incidents don’t give the same numbers or facts. I know for sure you’re a smart guy but it does look like your fact based fear has a confirmation bias….. I am just a fact lover like you nothing else…..and even if it was true do more people die at the hands of Muslims or others. More research?

    Like

    • Michael, I’ve never seen any evidence that any of the listed incidents didn’t occur. Can’t check them all, obviously, but they all have enough details to do so and the ones I’ve checked have been true.

      Please post up the links to the ones that you say were misreported, and we can go from there. As you say, I do love data and I hate posting things that aren’t true.

      However, the sad news is that even if only half of them are true, it’s still a very depressing record of the level of Islamic violence …

      Best regards and thanks.

      w.

      Like

You are invited to add your comments. Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all be clear on your subject.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s