The Lack of Coherent Arguments
"
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Dares
*
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist
attacks worldwide).
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors,
Presidents Ford or Carter.
3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the
4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of
(see <http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm>
http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the
6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business,like post
What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan
was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold
The next will probably be
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?
The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided,there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and mmediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil right s during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is
because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.
These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out the tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of
And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners — not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as
many years.
Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims — not just in the
We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can
defeat anything bad in the world!
We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive,and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone — let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over
themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve.
Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses.
Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peacefulMuslims"?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we arein, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it."
When there is sound judgement and an argument that cuts across all political talking points to the real issues that concern all of US, it's worth publishing. Thank you, Dr. Chong, for making sense when talking heads become just NOISE!
Just one point: Hitler was NOT a Christian.
Reply to this
I don't believe the good doctor said he was, he was simply making the point that no one recognizes that as many Christians were slaughtered by Hitler as Jews, that's all folks recognize.
Reply to this
Hello. Eternal pessimist checking in...
I would agree that France is already lost and has been lost for some time. I think England is all but lost now and has very little chance of recovering. I expect portions of Shaiira law to be introduced there within the next 12 months.
The US is currently losing as well. We have just elected the first active Muslims to the US Congress. More will follow and within a decade, Shaiira laws will be introduced in Congress. They are already making progress in enforcing their laws by using judges and religious liberties.
No, they won't take over. They won't have a physical invasion with armies. But they will continue to slowly infiltrate until someone starts shooting them -- and by that time it will likely be too late.
Reply to this
Interesting.
I disagree with this gentleman's worldview. On most of the post at least. I agree with a little.
The fact that he cannot distinguish between a "Muslim" and a "Terrorist of the Islamic faith" is good enough for me in my book to throw his words out into the garbage bin.
He is asking us to articulate and be very clear and coherent about who we are fighting, yet he cannot make that simple yet important distinction between an everyday Muslim, and an Islamofascist.
Finally, I believe he nails his coffin down solid by not properly addressing the already loaded question of:
" Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peacefulMuslims"? "
That very question implies that a "peacefull Muslim" is not a fact, but a politically correct stance.
What would one call a person who goes to school, works, gets married, pays his taxes, plays tennis, and also happens to fast during ramadan, pray 5 times a day, and goes to Friday prayers?
I never thought Id see anything like this. Replace the word "Muslim" with "Jew" and everyone will be up in arms, crying racism, anti-semetism, etc. This is disgusting.
I am sorry Ms Dagney, but I do not share your enthusiasm for this individual.
Reply to this
As I said at the beginning of the post, I would replace Islamofacist for Muslim, but with that one replacement in critical spots you cannot argue with even one of his points.
Muslims have emigrated out of their traditional countries and are now in every country, on every continent. When they overwhelm the native population as they did with Lebanon, a traditionally Christian country, they took over the government. As Ogre said, Muslims threaten to overrun other countries which have not been traditionally Muslim. The facts are indisputable.
I've expounded a theory here many times to explain the rising numbers of Muslim converts. There are some obvious reasons, IMHO, their willingness to relegate women to a half human status...no thanks to the activities of feminazis, a.k.a. Women's Liberation Movement!
Without the tempering nature of a woman, whose place is at her husband's side as an equal and a helpmate, a man's baser instincts take over...which is demonstrable in the Muslim religion. This is not to say that there are some more "equal" marriages between Muslims. It's just a reality of the religion. The lack of the natural balance between the male and female in the Muslim world seems to give rise to the violent nature we see played out every day on our news programs! When was the last time you saw a Christian behead anyone?
Christians had their reformation centuries ago. It's time the Muslim world underwent theirs.
Reply to this
Hello,
"but with that one replacement in critical spots you cannot argue with even one of his points. "
I beg to differ. He cannot seem to distinguish who exactly the enemy is, even though he calls for more coherence. The way he makes it sound, the war is against a quarter or humanity.
That is not a coherent argument. That is simply looney.
"As Ogre said, Muslims threaten to overrun other countries which have not been traditionally Muslim. "
Ogre would rather have Muslims "shot at" than elected to office. The irony in his statement is enough to publish a book.
Anyway, again, you are using the word "threaten" by tainting ALL Muslims who happen to immigrate to other countries. I thought we already went through this on the previous post. You are mistaken to treat ALL Muslim immigrants as the bad ones that you see on the news.
"Overrun", "threaten". Those words connotate a malevolent intent behind a perpetrator. And the perpetrator here is "Muslim", even though that encompasas a vast vast amount of poeple. It is not only wildly inaccurate, it is borderline libel.
I will be the first one to say that Islam must undergo a reformation as Christianity did. But I will also be the first one to say that those who ave gone through a reformation do not need to be going backwards.
Reply to this
al_antar, you can argue all you want that Islam is a religion of peace. That's simply not true. Those who sit back and do nothing while Muslim terrorists continue their murderous rampage are just as guilty.
So, what do I call "a person who goes to school, works, gets married, pays his taxes, plays tennis, and also happens to fast during ramadan, pray 5 times a day, and goes to Friday prayers?" I call that person a Muslim who is trying to assist in the spread of the religion of violence because they do nothing to STOP those who commit terrorism IN THEIR NAME.
Reply to this
Mr Ogre,
I am not argueing over whether some archaic religion is a religion of peace, anymore than I am argueing that the Roman empire was a waterpark.
I asked you those questions to gauge you - and now your own words betray your true political inclinations. Allow me:
You said:
"So, what do I call "a person who goes to school, works, gets married, pays his taxes, plays tennis, and also happens to fast during ramadan, pray 5 times a day, and goes to Friday prayers?" I call that person a Muslim who is trying to assist in the spread of the religion of violence because they do nothing to STOP those who commit terrorism IN THEIR NAME."
In other words, a bystander is partially (or fully) guilty of the same actions of a convicted murderer, if they both happen to believe in the same religion.
I understand! Guilty by association!
Ahh, how heart-warming. The bread and butter of Facism no less. I dont say this for hyperbole. Im serious. Guilt by association is a tenant of Facism.
Now I understand. My gauging is complete. As a doctor's face lights up during a birth by stating "...Its a boy!", so too, my face is lighting up at this moment, at finally arriving at a conclusion after so much waiting:
Its a Fascist!
Good riddance my good sir.
Reply to this
Your too hasty judgement of Ogre as being a facist revealed more about you, al-antar, than it reveals about my good friend Ogre. You see, his point can be summed up thusly; when someone does something as horrid as bombing innocents in the name of Christianity (as some want to believe was done by the American terrorist Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics, even though he was/is not a Christian) Christians steadfastly condemn the action and the perpetrator!
Not so with the Muslim population, either in America or abroad. If the recognition of that reveals him as a facist to you, I would look closely at your own heart.
Reply to this
Dear DagneyT,
While I do not disagree with you that a majority of Muslims will not demonstrate as Christians do after a bombing in the name of their religion, that fact is a strawman.
Because this:
"In other words, a bystander is partially (or fully) guilty of the same actions of a convicted murderer, if they both happen to believe in the same religion."
is NOT the same as this:
"when someone does something as horrid as bombing innocents in the name of Christianity steadfastly condemn the action and the perpetrator! ...Not so with the Muslim population.."
-------------------------
Holding someone *responsible* for a crime because of someone else purely because they share the same faith, is what makes your esteemed colleague, a Fasicst, I am sorry to say. That fact, and only that fact.
If he thinks as you, and as I, that Muslims do not demonstrate when one kills in their name nearly as much as Christians do, well, no disagreement there. I dont call him a fascist for holding this latter opinion. I call him a fasicst for holding the former.
It would be wise to make that careful distinction in your processing of this issue, Ms Dagney. Please do not conflabulate or confuse the two distinct issues. (Although I will admit it can be easy and even tempting to confuse them).
I think my previous post was amply clear as to why I call your Fasicst friend a Facist. And like I said before, it is not hyperbole. I dont throw that word around easily as some do. In fact, I dont care to use it as an insult. Its too grave a statement to make. So no, I do not believe it was made prematurely.
Your friend believes in a Fasicst tenant. Im calling him out on it.
Thank you.
Reply to this
Well, he claimed "good riddance," so we shall see if he will be back. There's just so many ways to go with this one!
Ah, if I only had a nickel for every time someone wrongly claimed I was a fascist!
Let's see, since he claims that I am a Fascist because I agree with one tenant of it, then al-antar MUST be a murderer because as we all know, all murderers are humans, and al-antar is a human, so therefore, al-antar is a murderer. How's that for using your words against you.
What you're (intentionally) missing, al-antar, is the bystander part. Inaction can be a crime as much as action. Those Muslims who sit back and do nothing while their brothers kill in their name ARE guilty of inaction. Guilt by association IS a valid test to be applied in many situations. You ARE known by the company you keep, whether you like that or not.
Reply to this
"You ARE known by the company you keep, whether you like that or not."
Quite true Mr Ogre. Which is why I chose to say "good riddance" to YOU. Meaning, I would not want to associate with a Fascist in any way shape or form. I gauged you. And you seem to be a Fascist.
But, happily, I will gladly remain and continue to write, if only to point out your Fascist beliefs to any audience that might happen to be here.
"What you're (intentionally) missing, al-antar"
More telepathy?
"Those Muslims who sit back and do nothing while their brothers kill in their name ARE guilty of inaction."
(Brothers??..) Here, Ogre is again making the guilty-by-association charge. Meaning, that if a Muslim terrorist is found guilty of murder, another peacefull individual half a world away who just so happens to be Muslim is just as guilty of the murderer, by virtue of sharing the same faith.
Some great tenants that which many Fascists across the world have opted to ignore in the past and present, have been many. Ogre subverts the following:
1) An individual is guilty of crimes that he has COMMITED.
2) Any persons "involved" in a crime must have "knowingly assisted" the accomplise in said crime.
3) No guilt-by association.
4) An individual is responsible for his or hers own actions.
But the real kicker is this:
"Let's see, since he claims that I am a Fascist because I agree with one tenant of it, then al-antar MUST be a murderer because as we all know, all murderers are humans, and al-antar is a human, so therefore, al-antar is a murderer. How's that for using your words against you."
Here, Ogre's reasoning is flawed. That is because:
All humans are not necessarily Fascists.
But:
All people who believe in your "tenant" as described above ARE necessarily fasicsts.
Simple, logic.
A telepathic-Fascist!
Reply to this
This would be funny if I didn't think you actually believed the tripe that you write. Your response is nothing more than "I know you are, but what am I?"
How is it that you can attempt to apply one set of rules for logic to me, but those very same rules of logic don't apply to you? You are acting like a typical, standard-issue U.S. liberal: simply accuse the other person of doing what you, yourself are doing (even when the other person is NOT doing that) and attempt to scream louder so you will win.
Reply to this
"This would be funny if I didn't think you actually believed the tripe that you write"
I agree. Not to be cocky or anything, but I do indeed try to inject a little bit of humour when, as you Americans say, "handing someone his own ass."
"How is it that you can attempt to apply one set of rules for logic to me, but those very same rules of logic don't apply to you? "
Mr Ogre is cordially invited to copy/paste a statement I made where he feels that I did not apply logic to myself.
"You are acting like a typical, standard-issue U.S. liberal: simply accuse the other person of doing what you, yourself are doing (even when the other person is NOT doing that)"
FYI, I am neither an American, nor a "US liberal". I thought you were telepathic! Ok, maybe a knee-jerk reaction of anyone-who-disagrees-with-me-must-be-a-US-liberal clouded your telepathy. Its ok. I forgive you.
But what, one wonders, am I saying Ogre is doing that he says he is not doing?
One thing I know he is not doing for sure, is continuing with the argument at hand. Like, no where in my scrolling, could I find a response to my pointing out of his flawed logic, in:
"All humans are not necessarily Fascists.
But:
All people who believe in your "tenant" as described above ARE necessarily fasicsts.
Simple, logic. "
Where is the response to this? tsk tsk. Oh well. Maybe I will wait some more.
Thank you!
Reply to this
Feel free to join me in the discussion I was having. Or not. You can also continue as you just did, wandering about, incorrectly applying meanings to words and, yes, accusing me of things YOU are doing.
Maybe I'll try a simple example without so many big words that you might get. No, I don't really expect you to understand, but just for Dagney (who must be getting tired of us wasting her comments), I'll explain.
You claim that I'm telepathic, saying that I'm putting words in your mouth. In fact, you are the one actually doing that. You claim that I said you were a liberal. That's absolutely not true. That was a perfect example where YOU claimed something that I said that wasn't true. You then went on to attack me for saying that.
If I were to actually do WHAT YOU JUST DID, it might look something like this:
al-antar, you claimed that President Bush is actually a banana. I have evidence to prove that he is not a banana. Everyone knows he's not a banana. You just look really dumb because you actually believe that President Bush is an actual banana.
See how that works?
Once again, Dagney, sorry about the crap in the comments. I'm done now because this person who at first seemed to want to have a discussion, clearly has no interest in conversation unless it is with himself, or devoid of actual facts or words with meanings other than those he describes to them.
Reply to this
" I'm done now because this person who at first seemed to want to have a discussion, clearly has no interest in conversation unless it is with himself, or devoid of actual facts or words with meanings other than those he describes to them."
Ok. Lets say that yes, there are lightyears of difference between me saying that you called me a US-liberal, and me saying that you said that I am acting like a US-liberal. Lets further assume for your sake, that this discrepancy in lingistic accuracy is a high crime, in fact so high, that it is an argumentative make-or-break, and that all other arguments that I have put forward are nullified because of it.
Now, even if I give you that, (which I dont), ..but even if I did, I will only say this:
Im not the one who wants to shoot random Muslims just because they got voted into office.
Thank you!
Reply to this
Well...well...well. What have I walked into?
Seems like we've got something of a food fight going. I've never shied away from one of those in my life...so let me just weigh in.
I think that the problem we seem to be having is that Muslims (of all flavors) seem to be wanting to change the ways of life in the traditionally non-Muslim nations of Europe and to some extent at least one here in the Americas. No surprise to which one that might be. (Google Muslim and "gym class" to see what I'm talking about)
I'm sorry, but countries other than those that have "grown up" under the Islamic umbrella seem to have not been "good enough" for a large number of Muslims to call home, so they've fled to the kinder/gentler climes in the West. Once there...they appear to have become offended that they've landed in nations that were founded under a Judeo-Christian "flag" and think that they're somehow entitled to change these nations to fit their own personal religious/legal needs. They're doing so under the freedoms that are much more readily afforded to those of us that live in the "free" nations.
I like to think of the argument this way. Let's imagine for a moment that your government one day comes knocking on your door. The representative is accompanied by a complete stranger to you...but you're being asked to provide this person a room and some basic life support functions. Even though you're not tickled by the thought, you're a compassionate human being seeing another in need. You acquiesce and allow this stranger to occupy one of your rooms.
All goes well for several days. The stranger is appreciative of your kindness and is seemingly thriving, but there's some natural tension between you.
As the days go by, you start communicating with your "guest" a little more easily. They're becoming more comfortable as well. You think that this might work after all. Then reality sets in.
Your guest begins to exhibit behaviors that might be traditional in his home country...but are quite foreign to you. You say something about it and are met with the argument that "but it is my way. It's my religion." Oh well pardon me...I certainly don't want to trample your religious freedoms.
Next thing you know you're being asked to cook special meals, refrain from eating with your left hand, being told that you need to try not to show the soles of your feet and for Allah's sake, please don't subject me to that horrible show on television.
See...when people immigrate to a country, they are in essence voting with their feet. I'm reasonably certain that the vast majority of Islamic immigrants that have left their homelands reached their new homes either through humanitarian relocation or by claiming some sort of asylum. For those nations that have opened their borders to those in need...I believe they're being punished for their kindness when they're being asked to make their nations more like the ones left behind...
Am I making any sense?
MajorDad1984
Reply to this
Hello Majordad1984!
Welcome!
Mr Major, I agree with the jist of what you are saying, but not with the particulars themselves...allow me to elaborate:
For example, I agree that immigrants to any country, must make a pact at least within themselves, to try and assimilate themselves into the collective.
Now, having said that, I want to talk about your statements: You said this:
"I think that the problem we seem to be having is that Muslims (of all flavors) seem to be wanting to change the ways of life in the traditionally non-Muslim nations of Europe and to some extent at least one here in the Americas."
I think that is just plain wrong. Again, like I told DagneyT before you, and like I told Mr Ogre, you simply cannot make the statement that "all Muslims" or "of all flavours", because now you are talking about ALL of them, and making the remark that they are all actively, TRYING to change the ways of their countries to which they immigrated to.
So its firstly inaccurate.
Secondly, lets just say that was true just for the sake of argument. So long as those "changes" which they would like to see come about lawfully - according to the laws of their host countries - then whats the problem? Let me provide an example.
I used to live in a building complex that had alot of Muslim immigrants. This complex had two buildings. When they were built in the 80s, they had two gyms, and this complex always had a voters board, made up of the residents of course. The voters board would regulate things like parking zones, neighbourhood watch, etc etc.
One day, after one session, the voting board voted for the gyms to become segregated. One for girls, and one for boys. (Or both gyms, but time divided during the day time between male-times and female-times). The predominant populus were conservative Muslims, and the women felt it inappropriate to work out with males in the same gym. This change was well within the jurisdiction of the board, and it got voted in.
Now im not a fan of segregated gyms in the slightest bit. But this is juristdiction that the board had, and I knew it coming into the rental agreement. So this change, no matter how "alien" to me, or how repulsive, was passed, legally, according to the concordat, fair and sqaure! There is no "imposition" here. It would be a different story if the board sent some young men over to my apartment on the 11th floor who burst into my apartment and demanded that I recite the Qur'an for them. THAT is definately imposition. But this particular CHANGE, (the gym) was well within the framework of what all tenants coming in accepted from the get-go.
So change CAN come about due to immigrants. In fact it has in the past. But we have to differentiate - we have certain mechanisms in place, that allow for change. Do the immigrants follow those ground rules in bringing change as we do? If so, then its legal and acceptable!
(More down) - contd...
Which ones do immigrants use?
Reply to this
contd....
And the majority of your Muslim immigrants here Mr Majordad, I put forward, are working just like anyone else, voting republican or democrat, raising families, and just making a living. Whatever change does come about, comes legally. If it does not, of course, they go to jail. But if it comes legally - if they use the same system we do - then there can be no argument.
Your analogy I think begins to breakdown when you state: "Next thing you know you're being asked to cook special meals, refrain from eating with your left hand, being told that you need to try not to show the soles of your feet and for Allah's sake, please don't subject me to that horrible show on television."
The breakdown is because this paragraph assumes that your immigrant guest is NOT conforming with your rules, and ordering you around - true imposition. In the real world, that is akin to putting a gun to your head and ordering you to worship Allah. Which is wrong of course.
We agree with that. But if I were to expand your analogy, I would say this: Suppose you have a grand rule in your house, that the only way for someone to change the house rules on what programs to watch, is for him to roll a six on a dice two times in a row. Usually, you are content with watching Jerry Springer. Your roomate occasioanlly wins, and gets to watch ER. Now if you Muslim immigrant rolls and wins, and you have to sit there and swallow 12 hours of constant alien Qur'an recitation, what is there to complain about? There is a difference between bringing alien change to your country using your own rules and laws, and forcing them on you.
That is a small, yet VERY significant distinction, and one must be prudent to observe it. It is afterall, the difference between a law-abiding citizen, and a criminal.
Case and point: The florida woman who refused to take off her hijab for her drivers license picture. She fought, legally, and lost. But the point is that she used a legal avenue, and her stipulation was knocked down, (and I think rightfully so too). So she now lives with it. This versus a father who honor-killed a child, and was sentenced for murder, and rightfully so. Do you see the difference? One conforms to the machinery in place. One doesnt.
Thus, to the extent that Muslims are "changing our ways" in the country - one cannot take an opinion of that in and of itself. One must ask - this change - is it being done according to this country's laws, and machinery? Or is it being done through violence and subversion? All change - Muslim or not - that comes through violence and subversion is of course wrong. All change that comes through the already established machinery that WE accept already, is just change, and part of a culture change that all immigrants bring to a new land, as they become part of it, and it becomes part of them. There is no threat. It is the natural evolution of nations.
Thank you Mr MajorDad1984, and I hope you find this exchange productive!
Reply to this
Al Antar...
I didn't spend four years at an evil military academy to be called Mr.. I assure you I've earned my title. I'd appreciate you using it...or not addressing me at all.
You seem to be very well spoken...but I'm afraid that when this is all said and done, you'll have found yourself on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the argument.
I am ALL for religious freedoms wherever and whenever they're called into question (Satanism and human sacrifice aside though. Jury's still out on Scientology...although I've always accepted it for what it was. A religion born by a fiction writer trying to win a bet. Now the people winning are the ones that are raking in the cash...) Having said that though...that does not mean that Muslims have carte blanche in playing the "religious freedom" card by changing the way our society deals with religion in public outside the church, temple or mosque's walls.
For Muslims to try to influence things like the establishment of prayer rooms in our schools, special garb for gym class and any of a number of other "special privileges" they seek in the name of their religious practice, when similar rights have been taken away from those that practice other religions is WRONG. If the immigrant Muslims don't like the way our society works and the laws that are in place, then they are more than welcome to throw another dart and select another country to immigrate to.
The fact that the faith is so inflexible (yet I can show you example after example of good Muslim men attending military training here in the US drunk as skunks chasing blond, blue eyed young ladies through a number of different officers' clubs) that you cannot work your prayer requirements around school or activities at the workplace, perhaps there's a cottage industry to be started in the form of private Islamic faith based schools. Catholics have worked their way around meat on Fridays...perhaps you should call upon the imams to make a ruling about Muslims living in foreign lands. What you're advocating seems to have been lampooned through the history of the spread of Christianity where missionaries once nailed shoes to the feet of heathen natives.
I'm not going to use all my characters in this comment. I've already responded to you with nearly 6000. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this matter.
See you on the high ground.
MajorDad1984
Reply to this
Dagney, I know I keep "throwing" European stuff at you, but then I do believe that there are solid connections between what is happening on your side of the ocean and our. Fjordman has come out, on Brussels Journal, with part no. 1 of what he calls "Eurabia Code". I've started reading it and thought you might want to have a look as well. A big kudos also to your commentator, MajorDad1984! Boy, I wish I had his way with words! Best regards - and please keep up the good work!
Reply to this
JD...
Thank you for your kind words! You're always welcome to read more of what I have to write at Cursed by a Classical Education! Come visit today, it's my 2nd Blogiversary!
See you on the high ground!
MajorDad1984
Reply to this
"I didn't spend four years at an evil military academy to be called Mr.. I assure you I've earned my title. I'd appreciate you using it...or not addressing me at all"
Ahh yes of course. Far be it from me to deny a rough-and-tough military man the sweet warmth and cudly-wudly comfort he feels from being called by his rank in civilian life.
"Having said that though...that does not mean that Muslims have carte blanche in playing the "religious freedom" card by changing the way our society deals with religion in public outside the church, temple or mosque's walls."
I do not believe I have indicated otherwise. That above paragraph is quite different than you stating that someone is forcing you to not-eat with your left hand. There is a right way of change. (Petitioning, persuading, legal means). And then there is the wrong way. (Imposition by force).
What some Muslim lobbies might be doing today to lobby schools and government districts for this and that, is nothing new. The group might be new. But the method is not. So again, we are back to square one: If change comes through the machinery that you have set up for it, and you accept this machinery, then what are you complaining about?
"For Muslims to try to influence things like the establishment of prayer rooms in our schools, ... they seek in the name of their religious practice, when similar rights have been taken away from those that practice other religions is WRONG."
("Our schools"? Who is "our"? QUITE telling you do not include the US-Muslim populus under "our".)
Eitherway, regarding change, that isnt going to stop them from TRYING, to get this through whatever legal means in your (their) country. What group or lobby do you know of that doesnt try to legally change some status quo for their own benefit?
Case and point: Affirmative Action. I am one of those, who thinks that AA is wrong, because at the end of the day it is still discrimination. Albeit official discrimination. And there are perhaps black-groups out there who lobbied for this, or try to keep it in place, even though it is vastly assymetrical. So what to do? Blame all the Blacks? That is ridiculous.
So the point being, throughout American history, different groups representing something or another have tried to lobby for a change in one way or another, all the while changing the status quo. So long as it is done peacefully and according to the ligislative/judicial machinery in place, theres nothing to complain about. That doesnt mean I agree to this change they want to bring about. But if its done the way we accept change from coming about, you or I, have no right to complain, lest your position is that you want to change the machinery. And the next question becomes: To what?
"What you're advocating seems.. "
Ahh! Im curious: What is it that you think I am advocating?
Anyway, since we're on military terminology and ranks:
Dismissed Major!
Reply to this
"Ahh yes of course. Far be it from me to deny a rough-and-tough military man the sweet warmth and cudly-wudly comfort he feels from being called by his rank in civilian life. "
The happy face did NOT WORK! This a warning, Mr. al-antar. You will not, in any way, shape or form denigrate an American hero in this forum. Unless you wish to be permanently banned (which other readers have urged me to do), you will refrain from talking down to, or otherwise denigrating ANYONE who has served in the American or British military on my blog.
It is quite obvious that you are not an American, though your IP suggests you're in our country, or you would understand our lack of patience with those who would change our country, be it through lawful channels or not. Our cowardly courts cave to Muslims and their apologist liberals, and we are damned sick and tired of Muslims saying they have freedom of religion, when traditional Christians do NOT, and our brother Jews are slammed and denigrated at every chance these groups get, which is often in America!
BTW, a Major dismisses others, not the other way round!
Reply to this