Richard Miniter starts his column about the release of new information on the flying imams by saying, “The case of U.S. Airways flight 300 gets stranger by the minute.” Well, not to me. My first thought when I read about the incident was that it was exactly what passenger and witness “Pauline” says it was in a letter to U.S. Airways, a stunt to get airlines to ease up on security. They figure that if they act as crazy as possible, and then get our cowardly, suicidally pc courts and officials to back down, in the future it will be easier to breach security.
As most people know by now, one of the imams asked for a seat-belt extension that he clearly didn’t need, and put it on the floor by his feet. Later, he claimed that the steward helped him attach the device. Pauline says he is lying. Imagine that. A muslim lying to the infidels. One passage in the column that particularly struck me was this one:
One thing that no one seemed to consider at the time, perhaps due to lack of familiarity with Islamic practice, is that the men prayed both at the gate and on the plane. Observant Muslims pray only once at sundown, not twice. “It was almost as if they were intentionally trying to get kicked off the flight,†Pauline said.
Almost.
We have long since passed the point where we need to get serious with these assholes. In fact, some of us thought it was at about 8:25AM on September 11, 2001. It’s sickens me that there are so many people in this country and around the world who either don’t understand what’s going on, or who actively support these freaks. The deadly part is that a lot of them are in our government. I hate to beat a dead horse, but there WILL be a catastrophic attack sooner or later. I wonder if even then our “leaders” will do what needs to be done.
The police report is here.
Update: Well. Ok, Ric first. I had intended to include a caveat for you, as I know you’re a smart guy, and I’ve agreed with many of your comments in the past. We were on our way out the door for dinner, and I didn’t get to it. It was a singularly disappointing dining experience, by the way, if that’s any consolation to the little lefty children.
Speaking of which, I rarely take them on in detail, partly because what they say is so stupid that it stands alone, and partly because I’m just lazy. Since this was my post, though, I feel a certain responsibility to answer them.
Update 2: Ric, thanks for the clarification on the spelling of Occam’s Razor. It seems I broke my own rule about knowing what I’m talking about before I spout off. You learn something every day.
Happyfeet I’m not sure about. His three comments were all over the place and I don’t remember any of his other comments, so I’m not sure if he was being ironic, but the Red Dawn comment sure is a typical lefty troll response.
“I bet you watched ‘Red Dawn’ like 20 times before you were out of puberty?” What does that mean? Could you maybe have a response that addresses the content of SDN’s comment?
As for you, “neoconsstink”–great moniker, btw, one befitting a towering intellect such as yourself–one thing I’ve learned is to research a subject before I open my big yap about it, especially in a public forum like this. Maybe you should learn that, too. Your comment is certainly instructive in one sense: It’s a near-perfect representation of what passes for argument on the left. It’s a self-parody, really. The non-sequiturs, taking someone’s argument to its illogical conclusion and railing against something the other person never said, the outright errors, the ignorant assumptions. It’s all there. I’ll never understand how so many lefties can exude such condescension and self-satisfaction as they make complete asses of themselves.
So, let’s get fisking, shall we?
CraigC, do you think all Muslims are liars? Your post seems to indicate you do.
Do I think all muslims are liars? In a word, no. However, there are numerous passages in the koran and the hadith that instruct muslims that the rules they supposedly abide by with other muslims don’t apply to interactions with unbelievers. In fact, deceiving the non-believers is one of many specifically sanctioned methods of advancing islam. That’s why there’s no such thing as a truce in the permanent sense with muslims. The word for truce is “hudna,” which essentially means laying low until you can deal from a stronger position, at which time you attack again. The Meccans found that out the hard way when mohammed returned from Medina. Layer that onto the fact that truth is a, er, fluid concept in the Third World. Third World cultures just don’t have the linear thought models that sprang from Greece and informed European philosophies. Truth is whatever you say it is, and whatever will advance your cause at the moment. For those of you who aren’t familiar with this phenomenon, trust me. It’s well-established, and well-known to anyone who’s ever had to deal with Third World people, especially Arabs. And, yes, yes, I know not all muslims are Arabs. I’m talking about the general culture.
Is there a religious war going on I was unaware of?
Nope. Nothing to see here, move along. Just go back to sleep.
“They exhibited weird behavior!†Weird behavior? That should be against the law! We should just outlaw Islam! That will show them.
Praying on a flight? Who ever heard of that!?! That’s a sign of crazy right there!
Right. That’s what I was talking about. Weird behavior and praying on a flight. You’re absolutely right, Einstein. I’d be JUST as concerned if a bunch of Buddhists ran around the terminal wearing propeller beanies and demanding the return of “Kung-Fu.” That David Carradine was kind of dreamy, though.
By the way, devout Muslims are reqyuired to pray a minimum of 5 times a day…that doesn’t mean there’s a 5 prayer maximum, Craig.
Um, no. They are required to pray once a day at sundown. They are, however, required to bow in the direction of Mecca five times a day. Perhaps that’s where your confusion came from.
Craig, ever heard of Ockham’s Razor? Elaborate plots by six “holy†men to take over the country by getting thrown off an airplane! Sounds pretty reasonable.
No, but I have heard of Occam’s Razor. (That’s kind of embarrassing, dude.) Who said anything about it being an elaborate plot to take over the country? Either you have a problem with your reading comprehension skills, or you’re just really, really stupid. Frankly, at this point I’m leaning toward the latter.
I expect better from you folks. Seriously, all Muslims are evil? Maybe on Free Republic, but here?
Ah, the piece de resistance. Yes. That’s what I said. Why do you even have to ask? It’s right there in black and white. ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL–CraigC
Two words for you, Craig: Political Correctness. It’s so instinctive these days that folks will shelve their own safety rather than challenge it.
As a sidebar, the irony to me is how we’ll endure no end to lampooning, ostracizing, and even oppressing western christianity, yet treat these psychopaths with an all-incompassing mystical respect, as if one day we’ll fully grasp the amazing depths of their mystery spirituality.
Unless you’re John Conyers. Then you just cash the checks.
– The real “punchline” to this entire incident was the next day news release of the pre-obviously prepared “statement” by a CAIR representative, enumerating every unreleased detail of the oppressive treatment of the 6 clerics, and calling for a full investigation into the mis-treatment of Muslims on a daily basis by airline personel. Couldn’t be plainer that the whole thing was a put-up job, since the statements came out even before the details had been widely diseminated. Up to that point, only a single local TV station had carried a very brief artical on the scene at all, with none of the imformation contained in the CAIR spokesmans press conferemce. So your take on it is spot on.
Whoever does not see this experience as “enriching” is Islamophobic.
I volunteer to start the count at 1.
I went into the Best Buy while my wife sat in the car. She watched the black panhandler near the store’s entrance. He didn’t ask black shoppers for money, only white people. And she noticed that white people would give him money, or offer protracted apologies.
PC applies to all of life, it seems.
Hey! Why not a new TV sitcom, The Flying Imams? I mean, we had The Flying Nun, right? C’mon, what might the setting be?
I think the liberals and the media who “actively support” this sort of CAIR-sanctioned activism do so for two primary reasons:
1. By privileging this sort of “activist” speech, they send an unmistakable signal to moderate, sane, all-American muslims to stay silent.
2. They hope to provoke an overreaction that is easily cited later to support the “America is at war with Islam” meme.
I think the prudent course is to focus like a laser on the CAIR/ACLU connections and focus criticism on the exploitation of the war on terror by leftist political activists.
You know, of course, about this.
I’m not Catholic but I’m waiting on the Pope to say it’s “Go Time”.
We are in the opening phase of a very new war. The “West” in 1663 was merely fighting for survival; the values of the West hundreds of years ago are not the values that we seek to defend today. We can’t win in the new confrontation if our strategies are based on an illusory consensus – a “United West” standing tall.
We face the gravest threat from those who will opportunistically use the War on Islamofascism to undermine our values from within. Europe is not in peril because of a clever patient insurgency by Islamofascist hordes: it’s in peril because these hordes have been embraced and cultivated by the European left.
Conversely, it is imperative that we not forget that we have vast numbers of allies among Muslims who are every bit as eager to undermine the values of the autocratic/theocratic states in which they are trapped. The Islamofascists are far more conscious of these allies than we are, and they spend far more energy seeking to neutralize them than we do to empower them.
I think they should have gotten some special help with their in-your-faceness:
Should we make the airlines close all those airport chapels too, actuse?
You don’t want to upset the christian underground.
Honest to God, I try to like you, actus, but you just make it so hard. Bobby Boucher could figure out that those two things have nothing to do with each other. If you really believe there’s some equivalence there, you’re dumb as a stick. If you’re just being deliberately annoying, fuck off.
Yep, that’d be it.
I can’t remember the last time I could even tell that a Christian was praying in a public place that wasn’t a church.
And I know it doesn’t require seatbelt extensions or killing infidels. It’s a cultural thing, I guess.
I remember when the Catholic Church demanded that chapels for the reposition of the Blessed Sacrament be constructed at public expense in all railway stations and airports.
Wait. That never happened.
Never mind.
The best thing that will happen with all of this is that the ACLU and leftists everywhere will unite to force the government to make Islam a de facto state religion.
Out of fear.
And guilt.
Heh.
– And thusly, do we of the “reflexively confused and paranoia based community” so aspire, to a complete seperation of church and state.
– What?. Inconsistant? Nobody said anything about seperation of Mosque and state, you fly-over swamp dwelling mouth breathers.
I will comment.
When I want.
Where I want.
School.
Work.
The Street.
Protein Wisdom.
Respond to my bilgewater at your own peril.
I’m all for freedom of expression and respect for others’ beliefs, but I would think these “clerics” would use just a bit of common sense. Hey clerics, I won’t go to your cultural homelands and wear hip-huggers and a tube top; you don’t deliberately try to provoke a reaction from understandably skittish American airline passengers.
I could almost understand if this was some hamhanded stupid foreigner Borat moment, but from what I read, these guys live in this country. If you can’t respect the natives and show some restraint, then get the hell out.
It’s incidents like this that are rapidly diminishing my liberal sensibilities.
Religious people doing what looks to the rest of us like showing off in public isn’t a new phenomenon. I’ve seen Maronites doing public prayer, Hasidics swaying and moaning, Christian groups praying to survive the upcoming flight, Hare Krishnas with their chants, Buddhists (or people pretending, with bald heads and robes), others. Providing a piece of floor where Muslims might pray, perhaps with screens surrounding it to provide passersby with an excuse not to be curious, seems an unexceptionable accommodation. As it’s an airport, they might even have the surveyors lay out an arrow with the exactly correct azimuth of Mecca.
The problem, of course, lies in the surrounding politics. Pseudoleftists (there are vanishingly few actual Leftists remaining) have a problem. Bullies figure it out by the time they’re seven or so: the weakness of pacifism is easily exploitable. Push. If nothing gives, push somewhere else. If something gives, push harder. Eventually you can get whatever you want.
Two of the four partners who run the convenience store I patronize are Muslim (the other two are Hindu). They take time to pray, five times a day, just as the Pillars require. Between times they sell beer and cigarettes in English, Spanish, Hindi, Pashti, and a Farsi-related tongue I don’t know the name of… it seems a pity to inconvenience them because others claiming the same religion are being bullies. But as long as we are compelled to give in to the bullies, Ali and the one who gives his name as “Sam” are the ones truly being disadvantaged.
Regards,
Ric
Ric, everything you’re saying may be true, but the issue here isn’t public prayer. The issue is a group of people who are dedicated to destroying our values, and us, if they have to. They’re probing the lines with calculated moves. The way you reacted to this is exactly what I fear. They WANT people to buy into the mistaken idea that this has something to do with civil rights or religious freedom.
actus – I found 18 distinct images at the christian-underground.com site – I think you’re missing a certain ironic intent behind them…
It THAT is too in-your-face for you, you are definitely gonna be a bit challenged getting your head around Islamic jihad…
CraigC, you are absolutely correct – but Ric is too.
And eventually, when everyone’s patience is gone, a backlash will take place. With any luck, the backlash will include encompass both those “who are dedicated to destroying our values” as well as those who dedicated to helping them. Unfortunately, it also most likely include ‘Ali and the one who gives his name as “Sam‒.
There is no “Unfortunately, it also most likely include ‘Ali and the one who gives his name as ‘Sam.’ If it comes to that, I’ll be standing with Ali and Sam, and I think I’ll have lots of company.
Sheesh. I bet you watched “Red Dawn” like 20 times before you were out of puberty.
CraigC, do you think all Muslims are liars? Your post seems to indicate you do. All Muslims or just Muslims here in America? Is there a religious war going on I was unaware of?
Just a disgusting notion: that these men are liars because they are Muslims imams. “They exhibited weird behavior!” Weird behavior? That should be against the law! We should just outlaw Islam! That will show them.
Praying on a flight? Who ever heard of that!?! That’s a sign of crazy right there!
By the way, devout Muslims are reqyuired to pray a minimum of 5 times a day…that doesn’t mean there’s a 5 prayer maximum, Craig.
Craig, ever heard of Ockham’s Razor? Elaborate plots by six “holy” men to take over the country by getting thrown off an airplane! Sounds pretty reasonable.
I expect better from you folks. Seriously, all Muslims are evil? Maybe on Free Republic, but here?
But devout Muslims aren’t required to take seats that don’t belong to them in the pattern reported by the 9/11 passengers before they died.
And are all Muslims evil? No. Are all Muslims the enemy? If they subscribe to all the Koran, which divides the whole world into the House of Islam and the House of War, yes. And, incidentally, lying to infidels, like neoconsstink and actus, is considered a Good Thing.
CraigC, you’ve been commenting here for how long? And you haven’t noted the general tenor of my occasional rants?
Yes, that’s exactly the point. If prayer was the problem, there’d be no problem—which is happyfeet’s assumption, as I understand it. To happyfeet Muslims are far away, and Christians and “neocons” are here and opposed to his(?) programs. Outrages felt and expressed by conservatives when Muslims misbehave are simply the Evil Party’s just comeuppance. They have nothing whatever to do with happyfeet, no influence on the future or upon life, and Muslim opposition to conservatives adds weight to his(?) own; as a result happyfeet can cheerfully support the Muslims regardless of what they do. happyfeet is invulnerable. If we confess that we are not, it is a matter for joy to happyfeet.
And we are, in fact, in something of a cleft stick. It is quite true that the Muslims we are having problems with are a relatively small minority of Islam. It is also true that any measures we take to protect ourselves against that minority have a strong tendency to alienate the majority and drive them toward the teachings of the extremists. Unfortunately it is also true that if we don’t take measures against the extremists we lose automatically. The fact that happyfeet will delightedly and uncritically support Muslims, because that damages Christians and conservatives without affecting him(?), complicates the matter.
It may be that the problem has no solution. I’ll be fine; I’m a male Christian, and as a “person of the Book” I’m eligible to convert. When the time comes I can, if I choose, stand, not by, but with Ali, and perhaps find out what the real name of “the one called ‘Sam’” is. happyfeet will be severely disappointed in his last few moments, I fear.
Regards,
Ric
neoconsstink, it’s clear you intend to be insulting, from your moniker if nothing else. But if you want your insults to be effective, take care in future to learn enough about the subject under discussion to avoid sounding like a particularly stupid, petulant, and entitlement-spoiled ten-year-old.
Regards,
Ric
I will not bow to anything, or anyone, unless by choice. If I can fight for that value, then I will have done my best, regardless of the outcome. Life without liberty, is simply death of a slower kind. When Patrick Henry said “Give me liberty, or give me death” to the Virginia house of Burgess, he said all any free man needs to aver. If you’re a man strick to his principles, you could live no other way. That aspiration is born of a pernicious spirit in mankind that cannot be crushed. All totalitarian campaigns, contain the seeds of their own destruction. Man will live free, even if he has to wander the galaxy to achieve it. If you believe in a “G_d”, an honorable death is freedom obtained. The men that dance with evil can do nothing too you if you reside in the house of your maker.
Regards,
Hunter
Ric – Huh? Happyfeet is male. Happyfeet loves killing terrorists. Happyfeet loves his non-Arab muslim friends. Happyfeet has no Arab muslim friends. Maybe Happyfeet should get out more. Happyfeet’s non-Arab muslim friends do not think it unreasonable that Iran should have a nuclear bomb. Happyfeet loves them anyway.
Happyfeet loves Donald Rumsfeld too. And Dick Cheney. And especially George W. Bush. Happyfeet is all about the love. Happyfeet loves Christians. Happyfeet is confounded by people who fear Christians. Happyfeet has noted that the agenda of the Christians usually includes food. Happyfeet loves food.
Happyfeet loves when terrorists die screaming, and he is happy to define terrorist fairly liberally. Happyfeet loves when people get to vote after not being able to.
Happyfeet does not love John McCain or Chuck Hagel, but Happyfeet is tolerant.
Happyfeet feels very confident his last moments will not be spent at a Quicky Mart, but Happyfeet would welcome Ric in his Quicky Mart of the end times. Happyfeet will let Ric stand in front.
Lucky you, Ric. I myself am no longer a “person of the book”,& will have to go down fighting. Luckily, the Muslims aren’t the only ones who get an afterlife upgrade for dying bravely in battle. (In my case, a member of the Asgardian (Chainmail) Bikini Team takes me on a flying horse to that Great Pennsic In The Sky)
The way the Flying Imams are carrying on, one would think Muslims have never flown before they have (just the “non-muslim” muslims of 9/11…and we know how they carried out their religious duty).
Why would these imams praying be any different than any number of moslems praying before or during any other flight?
This wasn’t a case of “islamophobia”…this was was testing of boundaries. Intelligence gathering on passenger alertness (post 9/11 passengers just don’t sit around and trust hijackers anymore… they tackle and subdue ‘em…ala tRichard, the Shoe bomber, Reid)
The FIs are not getting the airline to roll over and swat down its personnel, so now they are going to literally make a Federal Case about it.
If the lawsuit goes infront of a Carter or Clinton appointee, I know I’m not going to be flying anytime soon.
CraigC – just saw your update – The “Red Dawn” comment was just in reaction to jdm’s probably unintentionally melodramatic siege mentality envisioning a sweeping backlash necessitating the eradication of hapless convenience store workers. I think that this is just the sort of vision our flying imams are hoping to inspire. I think BBH has the right idea, that it looks like a “put-up job.” If that’s the case, then the imams are just lackeys, and the events on the plane a calculated exploitation of a target of opportunity. The particulars of muslim behavior are completely tangential to the CAIR/ACLU agenda, which, it seems to me, is well served when minor political stunts inspire dark apocalyptic visions of final battles. I think the better strategy is to look past the imams and focus criticism on the cynical opportunists who are trying to exploit the situation. I think that’s a message that muslims need to hear.
There is a time and a place even for muslim prayer. These clowns were indulging themselves in a deliberate wind up and should be sharply dealt with.
Nice to see a sane post from Cynn, very regrettable to see the arrival of stinkweed, worrying to see Happyfeet referring to itself in the 3rd person. One of the signs, you know.
No, it doesn’t sound reasonable at all. Only a complete idiot would come up with such a theory. Thank you for self-defining.
tw: youre91
Senility, huh? That’s certainly a possibility.
This is an excellent debate and one that is more important than ever.
The great irony here is that our country has been consistently attacked over the last 30 years (starting with the hostages in Iran) by individuals and groups whose one, defining unity is their self professed “fundamentalist” adherence to a particular religion. Yet it strikes me that the party that continues to be forced on the defensive and pushed into apologizing is …. OUR COUNTRY!
Why should we put up with this enforced status quo? How would the denizens of PW feel about me if a story about those lunatic idiots out of Kansas holding signs that said “God Hates Fags” chanting at military funerals and my response was something along the lines of “Well, I don’t agree with their methods but you have to understand that our country’s policys about gays bear partial responsibility?” Hell, Ric would drop the literary equivalent of a cruise missile on my head and rightly so.
It’s way past time that we take the offensive against this entire PC attitude. We should be confronting this sort of behavior, forcing the “imans” or whoever to recognize the state of the world and be discrete and sensative in their public displays. Craig is right on the money when he talks about “hudna” a koranic term that actually defines truce as made while weaker than your enemy to buy time (up to 10 years) to strengthen so that the truce, when strong enough, can be broken
I find no end to the irony of millions of dollars spent every year defending township nativity scenes while we cower before a religion just because they are more confrontational, louder and more adept at the victimization game. I have no intention of submitting to a “people of the book” dhimmitude and will continue to proclaim my understanding and opposition to both Islamic Jihadists and the muslim “moderates” who, either through willful neglect, abject fear or tacit approval, refuse to condemn terrorism completely, refuse to eliminate the “but” about “foreign policy” or “presence in the holy grounds” or any other false flag.
Until that time comes, while I will continue to embrace muslims in personal friendship, I will continue to be vigilant against the PC surrender monkeys who would continue to perpetuate a fiction of a peaceful religion that requires our accomadation. It’s way past time the the muslim’s victim mentality not be an excuse for ignoring the reality of the religious war that has been declared and is actively being pursued against us.
The PC police can come and get me if they desire. Keep an eye out for the Claymores…
BJ – this part I don’t get… The behavior of the imams in question was designed to be provocative… if anything, their behavior can be contrasted with the behavior of the other 99% of Muslims. As far as the “Muslim victim mentality” goes… I grant you, it’s very real and very annoying, but I try to remember that just about every Muslim has a 9/11 story of a friend or relative who subsequently lost their job, or didn’t get an internship, or who found themselves with fewer friends or acquaintances. These guys have paid an uncomfortable price for the beliefs and actions of others. It’s important as well to acknowledge that Muslims in America are overwhelmingly peaceful.
On the other hand, I do think Muslims have gotten awfully liberal, but when I’ve talked to them what I notice is that they have gravitated to media that reinforces their sense of alienation. NPR’s September 11 remembrance this year was all about reinforcing Muslims’ sense of victimhood – a whole week of it… story after story.
In other words, Muslims are being targeted every day by the left with some very unhealthy messages – and so my question for you is, do we cede the dialog to the left? To CAIR and NPR and Katie Couric and the ACLU and the NYT? The right has shouldered incredible political risk and invested a lot of hope and faith in the idea that the liberation of Muslims in the Middle East is the best possible path to ameliorate the lure of radical Islam: we have a powerful message, but we’re not effectively directing it at Muslims.
Winning the support of even a substantial minority of Muslims would deflate much of the talking points of the left – both here and abroad, particularly in Europe. It’s way too early in this struggle to abandon that effort.
Oc*am’s Razor? Sounds more like Rules for Radicals. Use the system against itself. This wouldn’t be in a movie because no self-respecting screenwriter would come up with something so pathetic, but in reality it is all too common. Saul Alinsky should have choked on his umbilical cord.
PS Re Occam’s Razor, that’s how I always learned it, but have seen the other (don’t like it).
happyfeet,
this is what I’m talking about; I look for your expertise on melodramatic aspects tho’. And this was back when many of us still believed that Religion of Peace crap.
What do think will happen when Mr & Mrs Middleclass finally figure that they’ve been played for chumps by resident Islamists and their enablers? This country has been there before (I shouldn’t need to name examples); what makes you think it couldn’t or won’t happen again?
PS I was long out of puberty when Red Dawn came out, thanks.
Two minor points first.
happyfeet, apparently I owe you an apology; I misunderstood your posts. It’s a deficiency of mine. I tend to have trouble with the subtler forms of irony. Sorry.
Sir William of Occam, who originated the rule about the Least Sufficient Hypothesis, lived in a time when spelling was at best unstandardized and at worst an expression of personal taste. Spellings of his name are all over the map. “Occam” is what is normally expected nowadays, but he and his contemporaries used “Occam”, “Ockam”, and “Ockham” more or less interchangeably, and “Okham” or “Ocham” once in a while. Apparently ol’ Bill hisself used “Ockham” more than any other alternative, which makes sense. It’s a placename, “-ham” as a suffix to a placename is quite common, and both “ch” and “kh” represented the German “ach” sound to his contemporaries, so it needed the extra “c” to harden it up.
Don’t fuss at people over the spelling. Fuss at them for leaving out part of the idea. Both “Least” and “Sufficient” are necessary to the concept.
Now I need to go feed critters. Dammit, the most interesting part of threads here always happens when I’m asleep.
Regards,
Ric
jdm – Not a single one of the murderers that have been caught in these cases was acquitted. That speaks volumes. But the answer to your question, “What makes you think it couldn’t or won’t happen again?” is not a hard one: it doesn’t matter. If we ever face a terrorist attack that is devastating enough to spark a genocide, then we will be facing the total collapse of the rule of law in this country. Game over. America lost, the terrorists won. I’ve got a lot of faith that we’re stronger than that, but if it happens, Mr & Mrs Middleclass will have their hate to keep them warm.
Ric – no apology necessary – I am kind of entering a touchy-feely let’s-look-at-how-the-’other’ feels zone that definitely deserves some pushback…
again, I mostly think that the role of CAIR should be highlighted – most people, including most Muslims, don’t really have much awareness of the organization, but in an age where the conspiracy theory is so ascendant, I’d think that it would be easier to take the shine off these guys than we’ve seen so far… and I include Muslims among those that could be persuaded to be more skeptical of the group.
The fact that the (some of the) murders even occurred *in reaction to 911*, speaks at least a magazine article.
Genocide? Sheesh, apparently I do need examples… the Japanese internment camps in WWII for a start. Or how about the German experience? Did we lose WWII because these things happened?
Also, as far as I’m concerned, until I hear some of the moderate muslims telling their radicals to, well, “shut the eff up, you’re ruining it for the rest of us”, I’ll just assumed that the Muslim moderates are cowed into silence. Which isn’t helping. Themselves or us.
jdm – Those are not examples that can be adduced in the context of a war in which nation states are not implicated. Why? There’s no endgame: no armistice, no deportation, and no wisdom in releasing resoundingly alienated ethnic groups back into society.
To reiterate from up the thread:
I’ve also made the point that the liberal media and interest groups are actively stoking Muslims’ not-irrational sense of victimhood. So here we agree: Muslims are being cowed, and it isn’t helping. Liberals and the media *exploit* the silence by preferencing the views of CAIR radicals, and a message of “speak the fuck up Mohammed or it’s the camps for you” is probably not the best approach to convincing the silent majority of Muslims to speak out in a way that will place them in tension with their newly-empowered self-appointed liberal caretakers. Further, I think that stunts like those of the flying imams are designed in part to goad the right into criticisms that Muslims will interpret as being aimed at Muslims in general. Looks like on that basis the flying imams have won this round.
In some ways, I think we’re having a flaming agreement, but I simply don’t understand your notion that speaking out against the imans is equivalent to
I’m sure you mean well and want things to go well, but if speaking out against the imans is the same as “criticisms that Muslims will interpret as being aimed at Muslims in general” inferring that the imans “won”, well… well, damn.
Tell me, when exactly do moderate Muslims have to stand up for themselves as regular people as opposed to victims of the ACLU/CAIR? When do we hold them accountable for their actions or inactions just we would anybody else?
happyfeet makes an excellent point that feeds directly into the general theme of Jeff’s blog. It’s a matter of narrative.
The pseudoLeft has a consistent narrative which is highly persuasive to some. The poor are poor because they are oppressed and taken advantage of by the rich. Since that’s unjust, the poor have the right to take whatever measures they care to employ, including violence, to redress the situation, and rich people of conscience who don’t care to perpetuate the injustice must support them in their efforts. This is the fundamental tenet (or excuse) of Fabianism, and is the only tenuous trace remaining of true Leftism in most cases.
After all these years the Right still has no equally-persuasive counter. Explaining to a person who doesn’t have food to eat or a warm place to live that that’s just how the world works is not “equally-persuasive”. Neither is recounting examples of where Leftist philosophy has resulted in things getting worse, not better. People’s horizons are necessarily small—none of us can apprehend the entire world, let alone the Universe—and people who are poor inevitably focus on their immediate surroundings and the short term. Telling them they can eat tomorrow if they will support their benefactors in destroying the Rich will almost always gain their support; the fate of Others far away isn’t real, let alone relevant, to them.
We badly need that counterargument. It’s becoming a matter of survival, not just for the Right but for the whole of humanity. The pseudoLeft ought to be vulnerable; their philosophy has been reduced entirely to that proposition, to the point where they’re willing to apply it to physics, for God’s sake, and all of the other tenets originally associated with Progressive thought—freedom of speech, freedom of association, religious and cultural tolerance, the whole list of “liberal” ideas—have been reduced to shibboleths mouthed but not observed or respected. Like any monoculture it should be subject to attack, but because we don’t have a consistent narrative to apply the only effective attack has been mounted by reactionary, even retrogressive, forces.
Islamists are peculiarly well-situated to mount an opportunist attack on pseudoLeftism. The tenets of Islam might have been designed by a malignant intervenor to deliberately frustrate establishment of a liberal industrial society. It starts by eliminating half the population from meaningful participation, assigns a significant fraction of the remainder to seeing to it that that repression is effective, then requires that anybody actually engaged in activity (productive or no) drop everything five times a day except during Ramadan, when everybody takes a month’s vacation. As a result, Muslim society is running at best on about ten percent of its capability, and the result is inevitably poverty—especially compared to the West, which runs around a quarter of what human beings could do flat out and occasionally rises to forty percent or so.
But if the West is rich and Muslims are poor, the pseudoLeft’s narrative automatically kicks in. It must, of necessity, be that the West oppresses Muslims, because the pseudoLeft has eliminated all other alternatives from its thinking. Opportunists then have a free field. By shouting the appropriate slogans they gain the unthinking support of the pseudoLeft, which is a substantial force they are free to use without much restriction. Which is what CAIR is up to—not to mention Mugabe, Kofi Annan, and a host of others.
Until and unless the Right develops a competing, persuasive narrative, reducible to slogan when necessary and attractive to the poor, the only possibility I see is that the opportunist leadership of Islam—the Islamists—will continue to encroach on the West until they establish effective control. At that point the only choice will be for the human race to wait out the interregnum, until some equivalent of the Enlightenment happens within Islam. It’s likely to be a long wait.
Convincing the pseudoLeft to abandon its narrative, or even recognize where it might not be applicable, is flatly hopeless except in a few rare cases, irrelevant to general society. It’s been successful from their point of view, i.e., it’s yielded power and preference for them, in every case so far. They have no incentive to modify their thinking, and in most cases they aren’t thinking anyway, just running in undeviating, well-worn grooves, as imaginative and flexible as so many badly-programmed robots.
Yeah, I’m pessimistic today. Look at it this way. Pessimists are always happier than optomists, because a true pessimist is never surprised unless things turn out better than expected.
Regards,
Ric
jdm – the imams were intentionally provocative and the timeline suggests that CAIR was not exactly caught by surprise. What, then, was their goal? The Imams have made a concerted effort to portray themselves as everymuslim, “Flying while Muslim,” they cry. The media has cooperated in minting a story which focuses on the lack of a meditation room at the airport – In other words, the imams have successfully framed the story in the media that Muslims consume in such a way that they will identify with the imams.
This is a good question, and my only attempt at an answer is to suggest that we do much more than we do to build a consensus that the agenda of CAIR and the ACLU is not in the interest of moderate Muslims. CAIR’s agenda in particular needs to be forced into the daylight and examined, and I think discussions of the merits of public prayer and the other minutiae of the imam’s behavior obscure that objective and hands the imam’s, CAIR, and the media the exact discussion that they were aiming to generate.
But, happyfeet, you and I, most PW denizens, anybody who reads JihadWatch.org, LGF, Malkin, and/or Gates of Vienna et al *know* about the ACLU and CAIR. Those websites shout this info out for everyone to hear (read) – and yet…
It makes no difference. The key to the whole megillah is the “moderate Muslims”. And the time for cutting them (still more) slack is running out. For example, look at the reactions of people to the MN 5th district congressman, Ellison, who wants to take his oath on a Koran. Under less stressful times, this would not have been a problem. The reactions I have heard or read in the past few days, indictate that those days are past.
By the way, devout Muslims are reqyuired to pray a minimum of 5 times a day…that doesn’t mean there’s a 5 prayer maximum, Craig.
Um, no. They are required to pray once a day at sundown. They are, however, required to bow in the direction of Mecca five times a day. Perhaps that’s where your confusion came from.
No, neoconsstink is correct. It is 5 prayers per day (minimum, not maximum). Nor do they only have one prayer at sunset. They have one just after sunset, and there is also the evening prayer later in the night. You could learn more about it here, though I doubt that page is Islamophobic enough for your tastes.
And your understanding of taqiya is about as good as your understanding of the basics of the Islamic faith.
Ric – wow – I like the way you break it down. I am definitely more optimistic though – but I can’t say I’m up to the task of making a persuasive case for optimism that’s even half as compelling as the case you lay out here…
jdm, Ric has sort of slapped me into the realization that I am something of a reactionary optimist, but I think that but for the barrier of the media, CAIR could not withstand scrutiny, by moderate Muslims or others, and that the flying imam incident was a missed opportunity to highlight the cynical manipulations that are the hallmark of the group.
Minneapolis has been a lost cause for a long long time, but – here comes the reactionary optimism – how much fun will it be to juxtapose Ellison with the Republican nominee at the 08 convention? And don’t overlook the sizable Kurdish community in St. Paul…
Moderate Muslims, I would maintain, do speak powerfully simply by being moderate Muslims. My only thought on their silence would be to warn that activist moderate anythings start off with the best of intentions, but it seems like they are extremely susceptible to co-optation, so maybe we should be careful what we wish for.
ric locke writes:
One of the biggest problems is that the media, primed to the victim mentality, inflates the issue as a “muslim” problem when, in fact, it is a problem for “a few” muslims. They feed the universal victimization that is part and parcel of the CAIR/Muslim media that has now become the de facto reporting style of the American media.
These being the current facts of life, I have a difficult time putting forth a wideranging sympathetic vibe for “oppressed” or “victimized” muslims. I’m sure that muslims have experienced ignorant acts over the course of the last five years and those are regrettable and indefensable. Are we as a country to hold our security hostage to the ignorance of a few? Part of the plan should be to reach out to muslims in a way that says “We understand your dilemma but we can’t accept an idea that involves the exclusion of profiling as part of our security protocol.”
This is the part where the moderate muslims need to step up and be visible in denouncing both the actions of terrorists as irrational and unacceptable (no buts) and, by extension, the proclamations of CAIR that refuse to make jihadism a part of the debate. As there are both groups and nation-states sponsoring terrorism as a de facto clash of cultures, it becomes the responsibility of muslims to step forward and declare their intentions. We are already walking a fine line between individual liberties and rational security concerns. Certainly it wouldn’t hurt if the moderate muslims expressed some kind of understanding of this and helped craft a message that recognized both muslim participation in our every day life and the real threat that exists without excuse.
Dorkafork: I must tell you that I am so sick of the “islamophobia” label as to be ready to toss my cookies. The one thing that is not going to happen in this country is that our entire social structure is going to turned upside down to allow a religion to practice the exact tenets that it requires to run its rituals. If the 5 prayer ritual is a bedrock of Islam and is unassailable as doctrine, then those muslims will have issues in western countries that are not going to be accomodating. The celebration of muslim holidays can be accomplished on a trade off basis (as some jewish holidays are) but there will be a limit to being a part of the American dream. All religions have had to make compromises in their basic tenets as part of the daily social and economic life in this country. None of the freedoms that are expressed in the Bill of Rights are absolute, requiring basic structural changes to suit all requirements of ritualistic mores.
My concern about many of the tenets that are expressed as divine law are not “islamophobia” or any other intolerant attitude but reflect an uneasy understanding of the cultural and religious conflicts that exist because of them. That is going to be the basis of my dialogue with Islam. I will fight to the death for religious freedom for all but not for absolute accomodation.
“…[while] we cower before a religion just because they are more confrontational, louder and more adept at the victimization game.”
– Yet another agenda the SecProggs have in common with the Islamo-nutz.
Coincidentally
– One of the asymetries I seldom see mentioned, between most Western religions, and Islam, is the deep rooted idea the Muslim clerics are careful cultivate, and enforce totally, is the idea of absolute alliegence to the clerics themselves as the titular voice of Allah. Western religions regularly defrock church leaders for all manners of unacceptable acts or pronouncements, much less calls for violence of any kind.
– When was the last time you saw a Muslim claric inpeached in the slightest way? Just doesn’t happen. I know of only one somewhat related case where recently some Mahadjadine militia were posing as clarics, issuing false Fatwahs, and killing other sect members under that guise. they were rounded up in Baghdad, imprisoned or hunted down. But that’s an exception.
– The Muslim community hides behind that difference continuously, and the West should call them on it. It’s very definately their responsibilityto police their own “bad boys”, and up til now they’ve gotten away with avoiding that. Let a few Imam’s be thrown out, and the sedition would be definately reduced. I’m not holding my breath. But if we don’t demand they take responsibility it will continue on forever.
– The Left knows this, and spends all their time apologizing, and trying to level the playing fiels. the Islamofacist movement would grind to a halt without this absurd silent acceptance, of an entirely different standard of behavior, promulgated by their Lefty friends.
I did. Loved it.
I don’t think so. But I’d hope so. Its kind of sad, really. So persecuted.
actus – what do you think of the idea of holding the Islamic community to the same standards of church civility we expect from our own religious leaders?
Did Ric really say that Islam will take over the West? Absolutely husterical.
Their window of opportunity sort of closed in the time of Charles and some entertainig battles in Northern Spain and Southern France in the 8th century. That would be when our ancestors were shaqttered, illiterate, living in constant fear of the Saracens and Vikings.
Since then, Ric, all the money and all the power are on our side. The idea that soemhow Islam will take over the West is a bit far-fetched (oh, here they come the furious typing about France…last time I saw Chirac he was a good Catholic boy).
You guys linger in your little conspiracies and read Michelle and the other haters. You are doing just want bin Laden wants you to do. See, his plan is to unite the Muslims of Saudi Arabia to kick out the King of Saudi Arabia. I’m sure he dreams bigger than that, but, since a jihadi armored division consists of a Taliban Toyota pick-up truck with a machine gun mounted on the back, I doubt you have anything to fear.
See, Ric, you lash out in your fear and you smack the every Muslim, which just drives them toward the crazies. Be an American and stop being scared of the Muslim bogey-man Michelle tells you is under your bed. Otherwise, you start to sound like Michael Savage. You don’t want that now, do you
“You don’t want that now, do you”
– No. Better to sound like Noam Chosky, poo-pooing everything to cover your Islamic brothers asses, until another attack takes out a few more thousand Americans you motherfucker. Brilliant.
I don’t think we want the islamics to start teaching our kids creationism and having as much influence as christians do. So no. I don’t want islam ot be like the christians.
– Nice answer actus. Not a response to the question I asked, but then you never do, so whats new.
– I didn’t ask you about Islamic “influence”. I asked you whether Islamic clerics should be held to the same standards as Western religious leaders. Yes. No. Simple.
And except for the Battle of Vienna in 1683 (ie, nearly the end of 17th century), you’d be correct too. Just like the rest of your rant.
Pray where they want when they want? sure. Sounds good. lets hold all godists—nay, everyone—to the same standards
actus – when you decide to answer my question, let me know.
You do realise, do you not, that Islam is our Carthage? Whether it is Europe’s Carthage or the whole West’s, I don’t know.
If you might recall your history, Carthage was the enemy that Rome fought with complete impunity and viciousness, not because Rome was vicious, but because Carthage almost bested her.
What is characteristic of mankind is that ‘Ali’ and ‘Sam’ will be swept up in the tide of the backlash. When it will happen is unclear, but IF we do not stop the madness somehow (or the moderates themselves) then the kid gloves will come off… permanently. If you say ‘What about Japan? Didn’t the ‘kid’ gloves come off?’
The answer? What we did there was merciful. What may happen to the middle east? Well– back in the Roman days, they used salt. We’ll figure out something better.
In other words, sans kid gloves, there would not BE a Japan.
This will likely not be a good thing for our civilization, because it will mean we have essentially in the public sense reached the end of the evolution of our public policy. Why? Because the ‘end’ of every public policy starts with death and ends with desolation.
If you get your way, Lefties, the west really WILL be imperialistic. But I think that is what you really want– since you don’t believe in the spiritual afterlife, you’re determined to live in the physical one as soon as possible.
Bathe yourselves in the Chaos– because Empire is the last phase of a civilization before decline and collapse. And after that, the civilization is liquidated just as Egypt, China, ancient Israel, Mayan/Asteca, Inca, Rome, etc were.
It will be a time when everyone is ‘equal’ because there is no ambition, no expansion, and very little to hope or work for.
Or complete annihilation. Then again, it all depends on how the World cracks when it does.
Hint: Don’t f*ck with our civilization. You didn’t build it, and you all have tried to break it a hundred times. Keepa ya hands off, you twats.
actus: as for the Godists comment, you’re an idiot.
No, you really are.
Haven’t you figured it out yet? Do you know what ‘Islam’ is?
When you figure it out, tell me.
I’ll put it to you this way: The only religion whose civilization is still in the running is Christianity’s.
Islam is jealous. Too bad, you f*cks.
At least the Jews have the common sense to work with whatever civ they are in. Hindus too. Islam just don’t get it.
You didn’t notice when I said that we should hold everyone to the same standards?
Nah. They just got a late start. Haven’t had their enlightnment yet. I’d rather not give any of them more lip though.
Right, you’d rather fuck with people who won’t take your head, slimy bag of shit that you are. I hate to break this to you, but they won’t respect you in the morning.
You get used to that sort of thing hanging out around here.
“You didn’t notice when I said that we should hold everyone to the same standards?”
– So then I would have to assume you would be good to go if we cut off the heads of any infidels that refuse to convert to judao or christianity, would that be right. Alternatively we could demand the Muslim “moderates” to police their own clerics, and banish anyone that calls for Saria’ by force. which would you say was the most equitable?
Here isn’t what you need to concern yourself with. And you know it, which is why you behave as you do. As for the other, you wouldn’t want to give them any lip…
Anyone of us is free to become a muslim moderate and do any policing they want. But sure, I think all religious moderates should be banishing and punishing their extremists. Even better, we should stop listening to the whole lot.
Well, there it is. The Actus Solution… but what if they’re not finished “talking”?
Nice to know that at least some of the moonbats can see lightning and hear thunder. For the rest of it, well… it’s a little incomplete. That is how it started, but bin Laden himself is pretty much a nonentity these days—iconic, but not influential—and movements do take on a life of their own when the Founder is out of the picture.
It also fails to recognize that there are two, almost completely separate, Movements out there. The two operate occasionally in uneasy alliance, occasionally in violent opposition, but mostly they go on without much reference to one another except in rhetoric. Do you have any inkling of what the second one might be? You haven’t demonstrated any such awareness.
As for “hating”, that’s either a deliberate misreading of my posts or evidence that you’re both stupid and ignorant. I’m specifically trying to find a balance that will let reasonable people—in which group I do not include yourself, neoconsstink; you’re a reflex, a preprogrammed response, with all the options of a jukebox—oppose the nutcases while giving the rest as much slack as possible.
No, I don’t think the Islamists can “take over the West.” I do think the West can hand itself over to them, in dribs and drabs without believing that’s what’s happening. Remember the boiling frog? When Australian girls can’t wear skimpy bikinis on Bondi Beach without the “liberal” establishment agreeing that they’re inviting rape and deserve what they get, there are problems. When the “liberal” establishment is willing to bend over (not even backwards) to accommodate and promote the more insane Islamists’s programs and goals, I see problems.
The real trouble I see is that human beings aren’t frogs. At some point they tend to give way to their inner Popeye. “I’ve had all I can stands, ‘cause I can’t stands no more!” There are ominous signs of that starting to happen in Europe. Oddly enough for a “hater”, I’d prefer that that didn’t happen here. But there are limits to the accommodations we can offer. If “religious tolerance” or “tolerance of the Other’s culture” means we have to suffer the version of “Islamic values” that includes slavery, subjection of women to random rape, and similar “cultural artifacts”, the Islamists have, in fact, been granted supreme authority. And if pointing out the danger of backlash from that is “hating”, then yeah, I’ll take the label. Not Muslims, though. Unlike the pseudoLeft, I see Muslims as people with a range of possible responses, not monolithic brown victims. There are some Muslims I don’t think very highly of. Very few of them are below neoconsstink and allies in my estimation.
Regards,
Ric
Actus still doesn’t get it. Islam had their civilization. It is in its final death throes.
They will never have an enlightenment. They’re finished.
All that remains is a religion and a vengeful ghost.
Who you gonna call?
That’s right.
TW: old83– Yeah, his arguments WERE old in ‘83, Turing word.
You could learn more about it here, though I doubt that page is Islamophobic enough for your tastes.
Dorka, if by that you mean that I’m not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore, then color me islamophobic. What was it they said about the Chapel Hill jihadist? Oh right, friendly, good student, you know….quiet.
If it makes you feel better about yourself to be so tolerant and unconcerned, knock yourself out. As for me, I’ll be as friendly as the social situation requires me to be, but I won’t turn my back on them.
“trickle down” didn’t work huh?
“trickle down†didn’t work huh?
– Apparently it did actus, how else to explain how back stabbers like yourself make it under a system you work so hard to undercut, and despise. Sounds pretty beneficent. ‘Course under your beloved Sharia’/Socialism/Marxism, what have you, you’d be summarily beheaded or shot the first time you opened your yap. Yeh, I’d have to say you’re one lucky dude, and as ungrateful as they come.
Must be why I love it so.
tell me BBH, when they were taking applications for guest posters, did you apply? that would have been nice.
– Aww hell actus. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but you really wouldn’t want to read my stuff. Way too “American”, and principled for your tastes, and I’m a dumb redneck that believes in showing a little respect, and appriciation for my country, and the system that gave me so mucu opportunity, and a good life for me and mine. You know, all that silly Patriotism, smarmy religiosity, and loyalty you find so onorous and stupid. Besides, after you work for awhile, and earn your little piece of the pie, you might actually calm down, stop being so scared, and decide the place isn’t that bad after all. Who knows. stranger things have happened.
Exactamundo.
We tend to forget that Islam is every bit as much at war with itself as it is with the West. Nothing would please the Sunni/Al qaeda types more than an overthrow of the “apostate” regimes that currently control the middle east. All of them are the detritus of colonial enterprises and those memories sting. Most of the current governments, to various degrees, are not “real” Islamic regimes, even though most pay lip service to some parts of Shar’ia. And (as ric hinted) there is still the little problem of Sunni vs Shiite.
While many wring their hands over the “civil war” in Iraq, the good news is that the enmity between Sunni and Shia is alive and well. The cold hearted bastard in me is tempted to let that country drown in its own sectarian violence, Sunni vs Shiite, sapping men, material and focus. There are those in the fight who would like us to believe that that particular tug of war is healing, but 1400 years of pure, religious hate doesn’t disappear that easily.
But I’m a Christian and an American. It is in my nature to seek out the right things to do and to help others. The fact that I won’t get any appreciation for this attitude from much of the rest of the world and a significant portion of my fellow citizens is troubling but ultimately irrelevant.
There will never be a “reformation” in Islam as long as the islamic religious “fundamentalists” control the dialogue, the media, the terror groups and either control or command influence in M.E. governments. The terror groups will have to be hunted down and destroyed. We shall have to continue to deny them safe haven. Nothing less than that would be irresponsible and, ultimately, suicidal.
Even about this, you’re wrong. Thats why I wanted you promoted!
So was the west over much of the last century.
But I like how you go from islam being at war with itself to the ‘quote’ civil war.
People have been there before, man:
Mommy, actus is projecting again….
Nyuk, nyuk.
– That could well portend the epitaph for the Celiphate actus, did you ever consider that? At any rate, history is definately not on your side in things. All dictatorships/totalitarian movements die with the demise of the leaders. Without the meglomania vision of the instigators, there’s simply not enough energy left to keep it going. That’s why they hide, once the festivities get under way. But their days are numbered. If you want peace, and an end to aggression, do everything you can to back longevity, because ironically if man’s days were not so limited, he would tend lose interest in immediate power.
And except for the Battle of Vienna in 1683 (ie, nearly the end of 17th century), you’d be correct too.
Yeah, the Turks overran Southeastern Europe from the 15th century. The idea the Turks were proseltyzing zealots on a Holy War is given lie by a number of things: First, and obviiously, Greece is Christian, so is Bulgaria, Albania, Romania, Hungary, Coratia, etc. Apparently, they weren’t that concerned with proseltyzing or they would have done so. Second, and less obvious is the wars they fought with Persia, the trade with Venice, the attack on conquest of Egypt, and the constant wars with Russia.
These weren’t religious wars, you dolt. They were wars of conquest, just like Peter the Great kicking the Turks ass was for expansion, not for religious reasons. Expansionism and Imperialism should not be assumed to be conversion attempts.
Otherwise, the Iraqis might wonder why we’re in their country.
Islam is rarely proselytizing presence, but they are indeed zealots.
So was/is Spain and France, but that didn’t seem to stop you from using them in your little 8th century rant. Heck, Spain was Muslim for, what? 800 years. Much longer than those other places.
And your distinction regarding life under Berber or Turkish Muslims would seem to lack an actual difference. Dhimmitude is dhimmitude.