British Author calls Militant Islam a "poisonous death cult"

[Michael Tee]

<<I think the appropriate question is: does any religion [rein in their more radical brethren?]>>

I'm going to have to take issue with you there, JS.  I think you took the crypto-fascist bait and got trapped as a result.  The fact is that the Islamic radicals are less reined in than the Christian or Jewish radicals, at least in the sense that the Christian and Jewish radicals seem to be content to allow their state champions to conduct the bulk of the mass murder and torture inflicted on the world's Muslims, whereas the Muslim radicals - - given the subservience of their own official governments to American and Israeli interests - - have to do the job themselves without state assistance.

The issue can't be limited to the "violence" of the "radical" Muslims.  The violence is not without its causes, and once again, Fascist Amerikka has hijacked the debate, focusing on the violence as if it sprang inexplicably into the world without examining the causes.  Also, I might add, focusing on the "violence" of the Muslims without even mentioning the violence of the West against the Muslims, which is a thousandfold worse in almost every way, certainly in the final body counts and the number of woman and child victims.

This debate has to get back to first causes.  WHY are the Muslim radicals willing to sacrifice their lives to strike back at Amerikkka?  Who is controlling the Amerikkkan government at the present time - - and the terms of the public debate, such as it is - - and whose interests are actually being served?  How do the media affect the situation, what role did the on-going media consolidation over the past 20 years play in this struggle?  IMHO, the answers to most of these questions are not rocket science.  The key to all of it is how the obvious is almost never debated in the MSM and how the terms of the public debate are set in concrete within very strict parameters.  This is not freedom or democracy.  And if you think this is alarming, wait till you see what's coming in the next twenty to forty years.

[Christians4LessGvt]

re: He would no more agree with you and your right wing views than you would with Tee.

Like I said I really do not care if this author supports say, nationalized healthcare and I don't, whats important
to me in this instance, is we may agree on IslamoNazis.

Honestly Js, with all due respect, can you not comprehend that?

You state "you guys will use anybody to make your point".

Well yes, why would we not if we agree with the person on that particular issue?

Js, I cant speak for Rich or anyone but myself, but to me it is more if I see good ideas espoused on a
particular subject I dont really care how the author feels about other subjects. Why should that matter?

For example I recently wrote an e-mail to Barbara Boxer thanking her and praising her for her work involving
airline passnger rights. Js I assure you I can not stand 99% of Barbara Boxer's political stances, but we agree
on this issue. Senator Boxer "hates" Bush. Senator Boxer is a pro-abort, Senator Boxer is for some type of
nationalized healthcare, all of which I oppose, but I would not hesitate to post an article by Senator Boxer on
airline passenger rights.

Seriously Js do you get where I am coming from?
I am not understanding why it seems strange to you.

[sirs]

<<I think the appropriate question is: does any religion [rein in their more radical brethren?]>>

I'm going to have to take issue with you there, JS.  I think you took the crypto-fascist bait and got trapped as a result.  The fact is that the Islamic radicals are less reined in than the Christian or Jewish radicals, at least in the sense that the Christian and Jewish radicals seem to be content to allow their state champions to conduct the bulk of the mass murder and torture inflicted on the world's Muslims, whereas the Muslim radicals - - given the subservience of their own official governments to American and Israeli interests - - have to do the job themselves without state assistance.

Oh good gravy.  Jews and Christians are more radical because "the state" runs their torture and murder for them (will skip over the complete lack of ANY credibility to that asanine deduction for now), while Muslim radicals have to actually perform the acts of torture themselves.

Does anyone else see just how demented this line of reasoning is?   

[Mr_Perceptive]

Do they effectively reign in their more radical brethren? No.

I think the appropriate question is: does any religion?

I am more conerned when a religion, whatever its name/title, is behind a 9-11 event. If you are not, then you are simply not patriotic.

Oh, I'm not patriotic. As Ambrose Bierce once wrote:

In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer, I beg to submit that it is the first.

And, givne the opportunity, you would be with XO in evading the draft, too. Heinlein was correct about citizenship. I met him once. He asked me about military strategy. Flew me out to Calif for it. Brilliant man. Not as brilliant as C.S. Lewis (I have an autograghed copy of Mere Christinaity), but still briliant.

[Mr_Perceptive]

<<I think the appropriate question is: does any religion [rein in their more radical brethren?]>>

I'm going to have to take issue with you there, JS.  I think you took the crypto-fascist bait and got trapped as a result.  The fact is that the Islamic radicals are less reined in than the Christian or Jewish radicals, at least in the sense that the Christian and Jewish radicals seem to be content to allow their state champions to conduct the bulk of the mass murder and torture inflicted on the world's Muslims, whereas the Muslim radicals - - given the subservience of their own official governments to American and Israeli interests - - have to do the job themselves without state assistance.

The issue can't be limited to the "violence" of the "radical" Muslims.  The violence is not without its causes, and once again, Fascist Amerikka has hijacked the debate, focusing on the violence as if it sprang inexplicably into the world without examining the causes.  Also, I might add, focusing on the "violence" of the Muslims without even mentioning the violence of the West against the Muslims, which is a thousandfold worse in almost every way, certainly in the final body counts and the number of woman and child victims.

This debate has to get back to first causes.  WHY are the Muslim radicals willing to sacrifice their lives to strike back at Amerikkka?  Who is controlling the Amerikkkan government at the present time - - and the terms of the public debate, such as it is - - and whose interests are actually being served?  How do the media affect the situation, what role did the on-going media consolidation over the past 20 years play in this struggle?  IMHO, the answers to most of these questions are not rocket science.  The key to all of it is how the obvious is almost never debated in the MSM and how the terms of the public debate are set in concrete within very strict parameters.  This is not freedom or democracy.  And if you think this is alarming, wait till you see what's coming in the next twenty to forty years.

"And if you think this is alarming, wait till you see what's coming in the next twenty to forty years."

I am new to this forum. What does this mean?

[Mr_Perceptive]

I am more conerned when a religion, whatever its name/title, is behind a 9-11 event. If you are not, then you are simply not patriotic.

Are you saying a religion was behind 9-11?

In a sense in that people interpreted that religion to its extreme and used this as justification for their actions.

[Mr_Perceptive]

The debate is whether Martin Amis is qualified to hang unpleasant epitaphs on those he does not like, ie "Militant Muslims", and whether said epitaph is deserved.

I don't see this as a very useful dialogue.

Will his epitaph solve any problems, or cause anyone else to solve them?  I can't see how.

as they say, "Sticks and Stones,
"may break my Bones,
and they'll break yours,
just as easy.

Or however the saying goes...


 

 

Sure, he is qualified. He can say anything he wants. Hell, he even got it published. Whether you agree isa different matter altogether.

[Mr_Perceptive]

I see no mass movement, which I believe is the only way to stop the madness.

============================================================
Explain a bit how a mass movement would stop militant Islam.

Would you surround the mosques and issue catcalls, threats, or make other sounds?

Would you use your mass movement to 'vote them off the island' as it were?

Also  important, how many people would have to be in  the "mass" before you (and perhap the omnipresent frog in your pocket) might join?

Probably strange hearing me saying this, but how about dialogue between moderate and radical Islam.

[Michael Tee]

<<Oh good gravy.  Jews and Christians are more radical because "the state" runs their torture and murder for them (will skip over the complete lack of ANY credibility to that asanine deduction for now), while Muslim radicals have to actually perform the acts of torture themselves.>>

Boy, you could not have gotten it more wrong.

1.  First of all, the conversation concerned the radicals of all three religions, Jewish, Christian and Muslim.  There was no issue at all as to which religious group was more radical than the others.

2.  Secondly, the issue was which radicals were the least reined in by their more moderate co-religionists. 

My point was basically that the Christian and Jewish moderates didn't need to rein in their own extremists since their own secular governments were doing all the killing and torturing for them.  The Muslims, OTOH, except in Iran, live under sellout governments which are really client states of the West and Israel, so when their radicals feel the need to lash out and kill their enemies, the state won't do it for them (except in Iran) and therefore the "moderates" can't restrain the "radicals."  The radical Muslims know, that if they don't step up to the plate and start taking care of business, nobody else is gonna do it for them.

[Michael Tee]

<<I am new to this forum. What does this mean? ["And if you think this is alarming, wait till you see what's coming in the next twenty to forty years."]>>

You have an unpopular war which continues despite the fact that most people now recognize it as a mistake and want it to stop.  You have a party which campaigned against the war, won a majority, and refuses to take any effective action to stop the war.  You have a "President" who has committed war crimes (torture, and the planning and waging of wars of unprovoked aggression) which at Nuremburg were declared to be deserving of the death penalty and an "opposition" party which from its very first days of newly-won majority status announces that impeachment (impeachment?!?!  What about war crimes trials?) was "off the table."  And you have a MSM which ever since the deregulation of about ten years ago has been concentrating its ownership into fewer and fewer hands.  You have indefinite detentions without charges or trials, torture, kangaroo courts without appeal, loss of the right to face one's accusers and other violations of basic civil and human rights.  And you have increasing privatization of army and police functions to corporations whose owners are major donors to or friends of the administration.

One-party government, centralized control of the media, erosion of basic rights, increasing militarization of the society . . .   I could go on, there's more, but if someone were after a fascist government in America, not by revolution but by stealth - - that's the way it would come in.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yeah, sure, only allow veterans to vote. How utterly clever.

Even Mussolini was more liberal. Instead of a corporate state, you have a military state.

Heinlein was not stating what he thought should be done now in the US, he was stating what happened in his sci-fi novels, where the nation WAS an empire.

I don't think he was in favor of hundred mile rolling sidewalks, either. Perhaps your perceptive abilities do not apply to an ability to separate fiction from reality.

After the Civil War, every candidate for anything was some sort of Union officer. The absolutely most corrupt period in US history.

Except for the present administration. I am pretty sure that they have robbed far more than any of the scoundrels in the Grant and Hayes Administrations with their mercenary contracts and huge contributions from the arms industry.

And tough shit, I always vote and I did not participate in that stupid and useless mess in Vietnam and I am proud of it.

[BT]

One-party government, centralized control of the media, erosion of basic rights, increasing militarization of the society . . .   I could go on, there's more, but if someone were after a fascist government in America, not by revolution but by stealth - - that's the way it would come in.

If true, i blame the communists.

[Michael Tee]

<<Probably strange hearing me saying this, but how about dialogue between moderate and radical Islam.>>

If you check out Juan Cole's website (www.juancole.com) there is a link to the writings of moderate Muslims.

Personally, I think the dialogue between the moderate Islamists and the radicals could probably be boiled down, in effect, to something like (from the moderate side,) "Brother, why don't you just bend over and take it in the ass?" and (from the radical side) "Fuck that!  I'm gonna kick ass!"

People always wanna know, "What are the moderate Muslims doing?"  They don't seem to be aware of the fact that the moderate Christians and neocon Jews (do neocons count as moderates too or are they radicals?) have invaded Iraq without reason or provocation, tortured and/or killed at least 100,000 Iraqis, wounded hundreds of thousands more and made millions of them homeless.

[Michael Tee]

<<If true, i blame the communists. >>

Wouldn't be the first time, and wouldn't be inconsistent with their theory that "Things have to get worse before they can get better."

[BT]

Wouldn't be the first time

With reason.

The rise of fascistic America is a direct result of the cold war and the focus on fighting the evils of communism.

Way to go pinkos.