Author Topic: How Many Bodies Will it Take Before people are willing to speak out against radical Islam?  (Read 1903 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
How Many Bodies Will it Take?
Before people are willing to speak out against radical Islam?
June 14, 2016
Phyllis Chesler
 

After being written off as a racist Islamophobe for fifteen years because I raised precisely the same points that both Carl Bernstein (!) and Barney Frank (!) raised earlier today; after viewing the sweet, doomed faces of the 49 murdered gay and perhaps non-gay people, mainly Latinos and Latinas, often people of color, on my TV screen—what do I have to say?

The question I and others have raised since 9/11 (for me, since the Intifada against the Jews that began in 2000), was: “How many bodies will it take for Americans, especially the intelligentsia, including the feminists, including gay people, including our elected officials, before they understand that we: (the West, America, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents) have a very real enemy?" It is radical Islam or Islamism, Islamic Jihad or, if you prefer, Islamist Jihad; and it is not going away anytime soon.

This is precisely what Israel alone has been up against since its founding in 1948. Actually, long before that, Jews suffered the most profound Islamic anti-Semitism. Buddhists in Afghanistan were murdered or forcibly converted. Hindus in India were slaughtered by Muslims by the millions—simply because they were Hindus. Christians have long been persecuted by Muslims for the same reason; that persecution continues today.

Clearly, more than 3,000 bodies on 9/11 were not enough. Clearly, the many millions of Muslims murdered by Muslim Jihadists have not been enough. Will the murder of 49 gay Americans finally be “enough?”

Somehow I doubt it but I certainly hope so. Of course, sure, yes, let’s ban assault rifles completely. That will not stop someone like Omar Mateen. But the handguns and the rifles are not as important as banning and abolishing the routine hate of women, the “wrong” kind of Muslim, ex-Muslim apostates, homosexuals—hatreds that are intimately part of historic Islam.

How many deaths before we become effective in identifying potential Jihadists? Within our borders? Arriving as refugees and immigrants? How many deaths before we are willing to use the word “Muslim terrorist” without fearing we will be demonized for doing so?

The gay websites are more focused on general “hate” against gays and gun control than they are focused on the nature and the danger of radical Islam. The gay communities have been willing to march against Israel—but never against Jihad?

Long ago, Natan Sharansky asked me if I thought I could “turn the feminists, the leftists, the gays around.” I told him that I doubted it, but that I would try.

Will these 49 dead and 53 wounded start that “turning?”

We shall see.

Offline ShadowAce

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 157
There is no such thing as radical islam.  There *is* such a thing as taqiyya, though, which leads people to believe that "radical" islam exists.

There is a way to fight this, but it's not very likely that it will occur:

1.  Outlaw every single elective abortion and turn back to God is a very real Christian sense.
2.  Recognize that islam and civilization cannot coexist
3.  Declare war on islam
4.  Flatten every mosque
5.  Deport every follower of islam

As I said above--I doubt this will happen.  PC has ensured that we can no longer fight back against our enemy without making more enemies here at home.


Offline bolobaby

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,373
How many attacks will it take before people start dropping the "radical" from this question???
How to lose credibility while posting:
1. Trump is never wrong.
2. Default to the most puerile emoticon you can find. This is especially useful when you can't win an argument on merits.
3. Be falsely ingratiating, completely but politely dismissive without talking to the points, and bring up Hillary whenever the conversation is really about conservatism.
4. When all else fails, remember rule #1 and #2. Emoticons are like the poor man's tweet!

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
There is no such thing as radical islam.  There *is* such a thing as taqiyya, though, which leads people to believe that "radical" islam exists.

There is a way to fight this, but it's not very likely that it will occur:

1.  Outlaw every single elective abortion and turn back to God is a very real Christian sense.
2.  Recognize that islam and civilization cannot coexist
3.  Declare war on islam
4.  Flatten every mosque
5.  Deport every follower of islam

As I said above--I doubt this will happen.  PC has ensured that we can no longer fight back against our enemy without making more enemies here at home.

Why do you combine abortion with the Islam issue?    Abortion needs to stop but mixing the issues only leads to confusion and unnecessary resistance.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,410
  • Gender: Male
  • "...and the winning number is...not yours!
There have been 91 Americans butchered by radical Muslims... in domestic terror attacks... on our mainland since January 2009.
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - David Burge (Iowahawk)

"It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living" F. Scott Fitzgerald

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,895
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum

Offline ShadowAce

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 157
Why do you combine abortion with the Islam issue?    Abortion needs to stop but mixing the issues only leads to confusion and unnecessary resistance.
I put that in there because I am convinced that abortion is the biggest reason why God has removed His protective hand from America, and why these attacks are happening in the first place. 

Our fight against evil will do no good if we continue to be evil as well.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
The problem isn't a lack of folks speaking about against Islamofascism (the term I prefer to use).   Americans of all stripes - including Muslims - do so.   What's needed is a willingness to recognize how our policies have led to the rise of ISIS and the backbone to change those policies and confront this enemy in the lands where it thrives.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male


What bullspit.   Your (and Trump's) foolishness want to transform a winnable fight against Islamofascism into an unwinnable crusade against a billion Muslims.  There's nothing more stupid than alienating one's natural allies.  ISIS kills more Muslims than Christians - far more.  We should be engaging Muslims in this fight, not alienating them with crapola like this.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline WAC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,904
Well President Obama just spoke ...'lecturing all Americans' about Islam/Muslims...and this immediately following his NAtl' Security meeting regarding  Orlando's terrorist attack that killed American people.....then he proceeds to drill us further about presidential candidates.

Terrible President who once again failed to assure the public after a terrorist attack and instead drills Americans....angry at that!

Offline Rivergirl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,036
We, the people know full well that it is Islamic jihadists who are doing the killing.  It's the administration and their cohorts in the msm who dwell in an alternate universe.  They want us to believe that it's us, the patriotic Americans who are at fault.

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,798


Offline Neverdul

  • Moderator Gubernatorial and State Races
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,596
  • Gender: Female
The problem isn't a lack of folks speaking about against Islamofascism (the term I prefer to use).   Americans of all stripes - including Muslims - do so.   What's needed is a willingness to recognize how our policies have led to the rise of ISIS and the backbone to change those policies and confront this enemy in the lands where it thrives.   

Here’s the thing. Omar Mateen was 29 years old and was born in the United States in 1987/86? His parents came here from Afghanistan and although I can’t find the date for when the father and mother immigrated here, it would have been before 1987/86 and it would be a pretty good presumption that it was after 1979.

And what was going on in Afghanistan during that time period?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

And who did we support and help arm in that conflict?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War#Foreign_involvement_and_aid_to_the_mujahideen

Yes, it was the Afghanistan Mujahedeen (that later spun off as Al-Qaeda). Back then the Muslim hard core Islamist rebels were the Enemy of our Enemy (The Soviet Union) and therefore were our “Friends” back then.  That would have included at the time, Omar Mateen’s father.

http://www.coldwar.org/articles/70s/afghan_war.asp

While I am not saying that Soviet Russia’s interference in Afghanistan, their attempt to prop up the Marxist government after the overthrow of the centrist Afghanistan government in 1978 and the expansion of their sphere of influence was a good thing, but I do have to wonder if we didn’t back the wrong side in the that conflict. The Soviets would have, if they had been successful and not faced with Western and Saudi interference, would have eventually crushed the Mujahedeen/Taliban. 

Again, in no way fan of Communism, but would the people of Afghanistan been better off as a Soviet satellite state or as they found themselves under the Taliban and now under ISIS?

Sort of like we did in Iraq and Libya – and how did that work out? And FWIW before that in Vietnam – we once supported Ho Chi Minh because he was allied with our then ally - The Soviet Union during WWII and was giving us assistance against the Vichy French and Japanese occupation of Vietnam.

It seems we cut off one head of the Hydra but then many more even more dangerous heads grow in their place.

Quote
Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

George Washington's Farewell Address 1796
So This Is How Liberty Dies, With Thunderous Applause

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Very good pic Fishrrman.

What ignorance, flowers. 
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Neverdul

  • Moderator Gubernatorial and State Races
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,596
  • Gender: Female
What ignorance, flowers.

Toufeq Ahmed celebrates the news of the death of Osama bin Laden in Dearborn, Mich








So This Is How Liberty Dies, With Thunderous Applause

HonestJohn

  • Guest
What bullspit.   Your (and Trump's) foolishness want to transform a winnable fight against Islamofascism into an unwinnable crusade against a billion Muslims.  There's nothing more stupid than alienating one's natural allies.  ISIS kills more Muslims than Christians - far more.  We should be engaging Muslims in this fight, not alienating them with crapola like this.

You beat me to it.

 :beer:

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,895
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
A quote, straight from the horse's mouth:

"These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it."

- Recep Tayyip Erdogan
(Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007)

Offline WAC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,904
A quote, straight from the horse's mouth:

"These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it."

- Recep Tayyip Erdogan
(Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007)


That's exactly right.....and the Imams say that all the time....there is no such thing as a moderate.  To them those who claim they're moderates, which I've never heard the call themselves that directly....but they are apostates...they have left Islam.



HonestJohn

  • Guest
A quote, straight from the horse's mouth:

"These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it."

- Recep Tayyip Erdogan
(Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007)

How does this sound?

Leftist descriptions are very ugly, they are offensive and an insult to our religion.  There is no conservative or liberal Christianity.  Christianity is Christianity and that's it.

Not so 'threatening' is it?