Radical Religion that cannot be named stabbing on the tube in London. Are the Brits going to take away all the knives now? What's next? Take away all the fists?
I really like what William had to say in a thread below:
..."What you don't hear is a lot of "moderate" Muslims speaking out against those who call for the murder of cartoonists. That's not a high bar, and they don't reach it. Americans, per our AG,are supposed to redouble our efforts not to say or think anything bad about Islam. Muslims, however, can carry on because there is nothing about their beliefs or rhetoric that would lead anyone but a bigot to distrust them."
I would quibble with one major point that Walsh made and that is the right not to assimilate. Look for example, at the Amish. They never really assimilated, even after hundreds of years. And we might not even be having the heated discussions we're hearing if Muslims had gone about their business quietly in this country. But some of them didn't. And there very clearly is an enemy out their cloaked in their religion that wants to kill us.
We are not as naive as Loretta Lynch pretends that she is.
Making the issue about Muslims is understandable, but will only lead to worse backlash and even stronger political backlash in the future once their numbers grow. What has to be attacked and what is easier to attack are the core ideologies that make Islamic domination inevitable: Jihad, dhimmitude, dar al Islam/dar al Harab and fitna. Google Farhana Khera, who introduced Lynch. Constitutionally protected political action is powerful, and they're allowed to and are using it and will use it also. You can make it a losing battle about hating communities, but forcing a challenge of core ideologies gets much further. Take a page from your own books. All the political success you had over the last twenty years wasn't from "hating" liberals or the state created by FDR even. It was ideological battles. Make it the same with the core doctrines that are causing this.
“As has been noted many, many, times — because it’s happened many, many, times — the president hates conceding the obvious when it comes to terrorism. At this point, it’s clear this is a deliberate strategy. By denying or delaying recognition of terror attacks and the terror threat he thinks he can ride out the news cycle and American attention spans and switch to another topic, say, gun control or climate change. One can’t deny that it’s worked for him. It just doesn’t speak well of him.”
Same for hillary. She can ride out her corruption with a helpful media and a short short American attention span. The corruption is still there, though.
Why was Lynch even at that meeting? Why did the Obama Administration pander so blatantly? Perhaps the arrangement was made weeks ago and Lynch's remarks were too. But optics matter and I'm glad to read and hear opposition to this ill-timed event. And I am against the Obama ideology which is utterly tone deaf to a growing menace.
As for disgraced -- that again is in the eye of those who be Holder. Lynch disgraced herself, not Walsh.
@april: Thanks for the kind words. So few in this world in my lifetime have voiced their appreciation of my wisdom......I think Lynch's statement is the intolerant one. I don't recall any such statement directed at the BLM crowd.......Many of these Muslims are immigrating from countries where Death To America chants are part of their religious observance. They sanctify their bigotry. It's on a whole different level than anything Walsh expresses.......I'm not keen on accepting any refugees or immigrants from these countries, and I don't think my distrust is in any way an irrational prejudice.
I love that pun(?) about "the eye of those who be Holder." Seriously. I laugh out loud nearly every time I read it. It's a good one.
That said, of course it's going to be a Democrat, even moreso the first half-black, proudly multi-cultural raised internationally president who's going to be doing this pandering. America is becoming daily a more and more minority-majority country. Doing it this blatantly, though? I see the criticism, but that's the bet - and it's a smart one given all the political realities I just mentioned.
But that doesn't change the fact that you're right about this "growing menace". The problem with that menace is that it's social and in its origin (origins too long-forgotten to be be obvious to most) ideological. It's doctrinal, ultimately - and has to be addressed doctrinally. Can a president or conventional (Western) political leader do such a thing? Of course. Will he or she be successful at it? Who knows, hard to say.
The problem is that reformist-challengers in Islam must strengthened and fight this battle, one yet to be named. Can Westerners strengthen them? Apparently so, based on what I've heard would-be reformers mention to Bill Maher, Sam Harris, etc.
I guess the irony is that perhaps Obama could do so, too. Some suspect his intentions prevent him from doing it. Perhaps they're right, as I don't imagine that as talented a wordsmith/lecturer and speaker as he would have trouble saying, "For thousands of years, the core principles of jihad etc. strengthened the impressive empire created by Islam in ways admired by the world etc. etc. etc.... but have now led to a culture of excessive confrontation and futile over-reliance on action in lands in which people's beliefs are not legally threatened." The problem is, no one in his position (or similar positions) has ever tried this.
Then again, none of them went to Cairo and apologized for Western involvement in the crumbling world the Ottomans left us after losing WWI.
At some point, someone in a position of his significance will have to do more. Somehow. It's up to them.
It's interesting. I didn't realize it before that comment, but Obama really is the person best positioned I can think of in the world today to talk turkey to Muslims and tell them that longstanding Muslim ideology has failed. Will it continue to be a faith that presumes some type of ultimate "domination"? He has to ask that question. Someone has to ask it. Or will it learn to be content to adhere to monotheism and other of its "pillars" in a free, pluralistic setting that sees no role for any religion's rule, period? Let alone one that is told to "dominate" the others. Someone has to ask these questions. They must feel incentivized to respond. Why does everyone beat around the proverbial bush? These concepts are not a secret, they are core principles, they are a set-up for confrontation and violence and mayhem even if not felt to be personally important to ALL or even 90% of Western Muslims!
I'm glad I bookmarked that tweet, BTW. Found it one night and then lost it for what seemed like forever, directed there from Gad Saad's account. He's a pretty interesting guy himself. I had just watched him for three hours on Joe Rogan - those two are a trip to listen to and can really go at it.
William said... @april: Thanks for the kind words. So few in this world in my lifetime have voiced their appreciation of my wisdom....
@William: I rarely see the need to applaud you......mostly because you don't seem to be in need of it. However, I must say that you are a consistently good and well written commenter -- especially at Althouse.
Here, I see you as the NYC intellect countering Troop's NYC libido (not that either of you lack the other :)
I conflated Joe Walsh with Joe Cocker. I guess I still don't know the difference. Looked for John Belushi singing A Little Help From My Friends and that turned out to be Cocker and not Walsh, proving Hippy 60's musicians blend together in one's psyche, like who can tell the difference between Carol King and Judy Collins, or that bird who realized she's ugly at seventeen? I suppose you can.
I'm supposed to know them by rifling the box of 8-tracks at Goodwill that I"m imagining.
Or perhaps by crosswords. That would be an avenue. I worked out their letters. They comprise a musical fog of crossing letters and names of songs and SNL imitations.
I just pisses me off I can't tell the difference between Joe Walsh and Joe Cocker.
@William: I rarely see the need to applaud you......mostly because you don't seem to be in need of it. However, I must say that you are a consistently good and well written commenter -- especially at Althouse.
Yes! Along with ChipS who hasn't been around for a while. Add insightful too, often with a fresh thought or slightly different look/angle of approach that is worth reading and much appreciated.
Ritmo mentioned Ali Rizvi. He's a well spoken likable guy, presumably an anti jihadist, and wants to dump the 2nd Amendment. To me he's like the Christian who doesn't go to church, doesn't pray, sins at will, but still feels a moral attachment -even if it's unconscious - to the religion. Ali is probably an indicator of the future, a Muslim future. If Louis Farrakhan was running for president against any non Muslim I'm betting Ali would vote for him.
I've communicated w/ the superb intellectual commenter, ChipS, and he, like Sixty, is doing well. He is just taking a hiatus and I hope it ends soon. I miss that good man. This forum misses him as well.
So Lynch wants to arrest people for speech. But Obama is wanting to prevent those on the "no-fly-list" from purchasing fire arms. He says not doing so is insane. Speaking of insanity, can anyone tell me how, if Obama got his wish 3 months ago, how it would have stopped either the Planned Parenthood shooting or the San Bernardino shooting? How about Sandy Hook? The Columbine shooting? The shooting at Umpqua Community College? The batman movie shooter in Colorado? The shooter in Arizona that injured the Congresswoman? The lead suspect in France was using a fake passport to get across the border, would he have been stopped in the US from flying or purchasing guns?
I'm not pointing this out to suggest we need anything tougher when it comes to gun laws. But I will point out that if we just enforced immigration laws on the book and properly vetted Malik's request for US entry visa; we might have stopped her.
I'm not pointing this out to suggest we need anything tougher when it comes to gun laws. But I will point out that if we just enforced immigration laws on the book and properly vetted Malik's request for US entry visa; we might have stopped her.
And having stopped her might have stopped him. All quite hypothetical, but reasonable.
I think we will find that the wife was the radical who flipped Sayed. So, stopping Malik would have been the key. Obama will tell us tonight the important thing is to be respectful of Islam and to revoke the 2nd Amendment.
I've communicated w/ the superb intellectual commenter, ChipS, and he, like Sixty, is doing well. He is just taking a hiatus and I hope it ends soon. I miss that good man. This forum misses him as well.
43 comments:
Is that Robert Conrad? He's a pretty boy. I like it.
I started a new tag, April
Radical Religion that cannot be named stabbing on the tube in London. Are the Brits going to take away all the knives now? What's next? Take away all the fists?
eye candy for the ladies - thanks!
Robert Conrad reminds me or Robert Herjavec. or the other way around.
I really like what William had to say in a thread below:
..."What you don't hear is a lot of "moderate" Muslims speaking out against those who call for the murder of cartoonists. That's not a high bar, and they don't reach it. Americans, per our AG,are supposed to redouble our efforts not to say or think anything bad about Islam. Muslims, however, can carry on because there is nothing about their beliefs or rhetoric that would lead anyone but a bigot to distrust them."
Says it all.
I would quibble with one major point that Walsh made and that is the right not to assimilate. Look for example, at the Amish. They never really assimilated, even after hundreds of years. And we might not even be having the heated discussions we're hearing if Muslims had gone about their business quietly in this country. But some of them didn't. And there very clearly is an enemy out their cloaked in their religion that wants to kill us.
We are not as naive as Loretta Lynch pretends that she is.
14 innocent people slaughtered and all Lynch and Obama can say is "The imaginary backlash is worse, shame on you people."
eff them.
Every disgraced congressman has to find some way to stay relevant, I guess.
I do love Joe. He had a great appearance on "Live from Daryl's House". He's one of the real ones.
If Obama had any respect for Islam, he'd stop minimizing it's repeated high profile successes.
Making the issue about Muslims is understandable, but will only lead to worse backlash and even stronger political backlash in the future once their numbers grow. What has to be attacked and what is easier to attack are the core ideologies that make Islamic domination inevitable: Jihad, dhimmitude, dar al Islam/dar al Harab and fitna. Google Farhana Khera, who introduced Lynch. Constitutionally protected political action is powerful, and they're allowed to and are using it and will use it also. You can make it a losing battle about hating communities, but forcing a challenge of core ideologies gets much further. Take a page from your own books. All the political success you had over the last twenty years wasn't from "hating" liberals or the state created by FDR even. It was ideological battles. Make it the same with the core doctrines that are causing this.
"Every disgraced congressman has to find some way to stay relevant, I guess."
Even if nobody in the world cares what he says now, he did get elected President twice, so he's much more than just a disgraced congressman.
Oh, burn.
Jonah G says:
“As has been noted many, many, times — because it’s happened many, many, times — the president hates conceding the obvious when it comes to terrorism. At this point, it’s clear this is a deliberate strategy. By denying or delaying recognition of terror attacks and the terror threat he thinks he can ride out the news cycle and American attention spans and switch to another topic, say, gun control or climate change. One can’t deny that it’s worked for him. It just doesn’t speak well of him.”
Same for hillary. She can ride out her corruption with a helpful media and a short short American attention span. The corruption is still there, though.
Google Farhana Khera, who introduced Lynch.
Why was Lynch even at that meeting? Why did the Obama Administration pander so blatantly? Perhaps the arrangement was made weeks ago and Lynch's remarks were too. But optics matter and I'm glad to read and hear opposition to this ill-timed event. And I am against the Obama ideology which is utterly tone deaf to a growing menace.
As for disgraced -- that again is in the eye of those who be Holder. Lynch disgraced herself, not Walsh.
Lol.
@april: Thanks for the kind words. So few in this world in my lifetime have voiced their appreciation of my wisdom......I think Lynch's statement is the intolerant one. I don't recall any such statement directed at the BLM crowd.......Many of these Muslims are immigrating from countries where Death To America chants are part of their religious observance. They sanctify their bigotry. It's on a whole different level than anything Walsh expresses.......I'm not keen on accepting any refugees or immigrants from these countries, and I don't think my distrust is in any way an irrational prejudice.
I love that pun(?) about "the eye of those who be Holder." Seriously. I laugh out loud nearly every time I read it. It's a good one.
That said, of course it's going to be a Democrat, even moreso the first half-black, proudly multi-cultural raised internationally president who's going to be doing this pandering. America is becoming daily a more and more minority-majority country. Doing it this blatantly, though? I see the criticism, but that's the bet - and it's a smart one given all the political realities I just mentioned.
But that doesn't change the fact that you're right about this "growing menace". The problem with that menace is that it's social and in its origin (origins too long-forgotten to be be obvious to most) ideological. It's doctrinal, ultimately - and has to be addressed doctrinally. Can a president or conventional (Western) political leader do such a thing? Of course. Will he or she be successful at it? Who knows, hard to say.
The problem is that reformist-challengers in Islam must strengthened and fight this battle, one yet to be named. Can Westerners strengthen them? Apparently so, based on what I've heard would-be reformers mention to Bill Maher, Sam Harris, etc.
I guess the irony is that perhaps Obama could do so, too. Some suspect his intentions prevent him from doing it. Perhaps they're right, as I don't imagine that as talented a wordsmith/lecturer and speaker as he would have trouble saying, "For thousands of years, the core principles of jihad etc. strengthened the impressive empire created by Islam in ways admired by the world etc. etc. etc.... but have now led to a culture of excessive confrontation and futile over-reliance on action in lands in which people's beliefs are not legally threatened." The problem is, no one in his position (or similar positions) has ever tried this.
Then again, none of them went to Cairo and apologized for Western involvement in the crumbling world the Ottomans left us after losing WWI.
At some point, someone in a position of his significance will have to do more. Somehow. It's up to them.
It's interesting. I didn't realize it before that comment, but Obama really is the person best positioned I can think of in the world today to talk turkey to Muslims and tell them that longstanding Muslim ideology has failed. Will it continue to be a faith that presumes some type of ultimate "domination"? He has to ask that question. Someone has to ask it. Or will it learn to be content to adhere to monotheism and other of its "pillars" in a free, pluralistic setting that sees no role for any religion's rule, period? Let alone one that is told to "dominate" the others. Someone has to ask these questions. They must feel incentivized to respond. Why does everyone beat around the proverbial bush? These concepts are not a secret, they are core principles, they are a set-up for confrontation and violence and mayhem even if not felt to be personally important to ALL or even 90% of Western Muslims!
Why does everyone beat around the proverbial bush?
Probably because of him or out of spite for him.
R&B, I think you did hit it out of the park with your 11:56 comment.
A rhyme for our time:
Western dread,
Middle Eastern cred,
Eastern led
Sparse.
"Sparse" was a comment, not part of the rhyme.
@R&B: Could you relink that tweet about Jefferson and the Muslims you posted last week? I want to use something from it and I didn't bookmark it.
Yeah, no problem. It's a good tweet, isn't it?
Thanks for your 12:14 comment.
I'm glad I bookmarked that tweet, BTW. Found it one night and then lost it for what seemed like forever, directed there from Gad Saad's account. He's a pretty interesting guy himself. I had just watched him for three hours on Joe Rogan - those two are a trip to listen to and can really go at it.
William said...
@april: Thanks for the kind words. So few in this world in my lifetime have voiced their appreciation of my wisdom....
@William: I rarely see the need to applaud you......mostly because you don't seem to be in need of it. However, I must say that you are a consistently good and well written commenter -- especially at Althouse.
Here, I see you as the NYC intellect countering Troop's NYC libido (not that either of you lack the other :)
Rhythm and Balls said...
Yeah, no problem. It's a good tweet, isn't it?
Yes. And thanks. I will work what I needed into a future post.
You know, this Ali Rizvi guy's pretty good also. Here's another tweet of his I liked as well as one he retweeted from Richard Dawkins.
I conflated Joe Walsh with Joe Cocker. I guess I still don't know the difference. Looked for John Belushi singing A Little Help From My Friends and that turned out to be Cocker and not Walsh, proving Hippy 60's musicians blend together in one's psyche, like who can tell the difference between Carol King and Judy Collins, or that bird who realized she's ugly at seventeen? I suppose you can.
I'm supposed to know them by rifling the box of 8-tracks at Goodwill that I"m imagining.
Or perhaps by crosswords. That would be an avenue. I worked out their letters. They comprise a musical fog of crossing letters and names of songs and SNL imitations.
I just pisses me off I can't tell the difference between Joe Walsh and Joe Cocker.
I just pisses me off I can't tell the difference between Joe Walsh and Joe Cocker.
Walsh was the guy who looks like bags who joined The Eagles; Cocker was the guy that John Lennon mocked in that infamous video clip.
Always good to make the Lefties put up or shut up.
Something more for next year.
AprilApple said...
Is that Robert Conrad? He's a pretty boy. I like it.
Right after "Wild, Wild West" had folded.
@William: I rarely see the need to applaud you......mostly because you don't seem to be in need of it. However, I must say that you are a consistently good and well written commenter -- especially at Althouse.
Yes! Along with ChipS who hasn't been around for a while. Add insightful too, often with a fresh thought or slightly different look/angle of approach that is worth reading and much appreciated.
Ritmo mentioned Ali Rizvi. He's a well spoken likable guy, presumably an anti jihadist, and wants to dump the 2nd Amendment. To me he's like the Christian who doesn't go to church, doesn't pray, sins at will, but still feels a moral attachment -even if it's unconscious - to the religion. Ali is probably an indicator of the future, a Muslim future. If Louis Farrakhan was running for president against any non Muslim I'm betting Ali would vote for him.
I think Obama is an over-rated speaker. It's mostly threaded bullcrap. Tightrope walking with rhetorical flourishes signifying nothing.
A lone journalist in a sea of appeasement, PC surrender, and deranged moral degeneracy.
I've communicated w/ the superb intellectual commenter, ChipS, and he, like Sixty, is doing well. He is just taking a hiatus and I hope it ends soon. I miss that good man. This forum misses him as well.
So Lynch wants to arrest people for speech. But Obama is wanting to prevent those on the "no-fly-list" from purchasing fire arms. He says not doing so is insane. Speaking of insanity, can anyone tell me how, if Obama got his wish 3 months ago, how it would have stopped either the Planned Parenthood shooting or the San Bernardino shooting? How about Sandy Hook? The Columbine shooting? The shooting at Umpqua Community College? The batman movie shooter in Colorado? The shooter in Arizona that injured the Congresswoman? The lead suspect in France was using a fake passport to get across the border, would he have been stopped in the US from flying or purchasing guns?
I'm not pointing this out to suggest we need anything tougher when it comes to gun laws. But I will point out that if we just enforced immigration laws on the book and properly vetted Malik's request for US entry visa; we might have stopped her.
I'm not pointing this out to suggest we need anything tougher when it comes to gun laws. But I will point out that if we just enforced immigration laws on the book and properly vetted Malik's request for US entry visa; we might have stopped her.
And having stopped her might have stopped him. All quite hypothetical, but reasonable.
I think we will find that the wife was the radical who flipped Sayed. So, stopping Malik would have been the key. Obama will tell us tonight the important thing is to be respectful of Islam and to revoke the 2nd Amendment.
That's fucking hot man. Dude is tough as shit. Thanks for sharing bro.
I am totally pumped and masc and republican after reading that.
fuck yeah.
Got any other masc republican articles I can get off on?
What did Rush or Insty say today I can splooge over?
Love that shit.
Makes me feel like a real fucking man. None of that libtard girly shit that leaves me soft dude.
I've communicated w/ the superb intellectual commenter, ChipS, and he, like Sixty, is doing well. He is just taking a hiatus and I hope it ends soon. I miss that good man. This forum misses him as well.
Thanks for the update, ND.
Post a Comment