patrick.net

Leftists seem to think that peaceful secular tolerance and violent religious intolerance (Islam) need some kind of marriage.

It can never work. What they really need is a divorce.

We should stay over here and not bomb them, and they should stay over there and enjoy Islam.

marcus says

I don't deny the problem. But I will never see that political correctness that strives to focus on the peaceful majority of Muslims is a problem.

The moderate Muslims, by asking for respect for their hateful teachings, are part of the problem.
There is only 1 moral thing to do and it is to reject these teachings. There is no tiptoeing around it.

The moment you teach these texts are revelations, coming directly from God, you are crossing into a territory where good human beings can change into sociopaths for no good reason.

rando says

We should stay over here and not bomb them, and they should stay over there and enjoy Islam

👍👍👍

marcus says

focus on the peaceful majority of Muslims is a problem.

I agree with you! The peaceful majority of Muslims are a problem! The problem is that they infect their children with the Islam cancer which metastasizes into radicalism in some, and these go on to commit San Bernadino, Orlando, Manchester....
So yes, this peaceful majority is just an incubator for terror. There's no conceivable positive of having people with such an ideology around.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Found a text searchable copy, on FB:

"Let me try to explain this yet again. There are no qualifiers associated with Islam. There isn't radical Islam versus sweet Islam. No extremist Islam versus peaceful Islam. No mean Islam versus kind Islam.

Islam is a collection of revelations and ideas covered in the Qur'an, the hadiths, and the Sira. Islamic divine law is codified via Sharia law (see the Reliance of the Traveller).

Individual Muslims vary in the extent to which they abide to the tenets of Islam. Some of these tenets are spiritual and peaceful, others are violent and filled with genocidal hate. Both are contained within the same invariant Islam.

If someone says "Radical Islam," the next question that you should ask him/her is the following: Where is the holy book of radical Islam and how is it uniquely separate from the latter sources? Same question could be asked of "Jihadism," "Islamism," and other obfuscating euphemisms.

The reason for using these meaningless qualifiers is clear. People find it unpalatable to criticize a religion in a direct and frontal manner. As such, they construct alternative unicorn ideologies that are "outside" of the "true faith." As long as this trepidation remains part of the West's zeitgeist, the issue will NEVER be resolved. That's THE SAAD TRUTH."

sagacious1 says

The dilemma for Islam historically is that it has been governance by theocracy, more recently via ecclesiocracy.

That's why there is not even a middling parallel between Christianity and Islam. While America is a nation where Christianity may still be nominally in the majority, Christianity is not the government and law. Islam is the government and law, a religious tyranny. When Muslims immigrate to a country, there is never the idea of assimilating into that country's culture--their ultimate goal is to replace that country's law with Sharia law and establish exactly what they have in those Middle Eastern countries where everyone has to live by the one true religion. It is as nonsensical as if an American went to Paris, then began demanding that everyone convert to the laws of America on pain of death and blew themselves up to make the point.

sagacious1 says

Is Islam incompatible with other forms of government?

Ultimately, you cannot long combine Islam and democracy without sliding into Sharia, which crushes all other religions and western notions of liberty. In most countries that have Muslim majorities, most Muslims demand Sharia. Read about Asia Bibi on death row in Pakistan, and the assassination of Governor Taseer, and the incarceration of the former governor of Jakarta, Basuki Purnama (Ahok), now in prison sentenced for blasphemy, and see some of the consequences. As Islam metastasizes through a society, it takes over and kills everything else: most countries that have more than 20% Muslims, have more than 90% Muslims. As Nassim Taleb wrote, the west is "committing suicide" by importing Islam.

To respond to YesYNot's parachuting question, the invade&import westerners are throwing their neighbors' kids out of otherwise safe planes, and feeling good about it, because parachutes usually work. The problem with using past statistics regarding terror is they do not guarantee future results. One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day. An egomaniacal person, or a group of believers in a megalomaniacal doctrine, can tend to explode when facts hurt their feelings. Islam maximizes the resulting carnage. More than 20 Muslim countries have already agreed a world plan against blasphemy, and the Islamic State has published online kill lists including Americans living in America. It reminds me of a poem:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Atheists are disbelievers, blasphemers, and now by definition terrorists according to Saudi law. I hope they won't find you, @YesYNot, but they do have a plan. I suggest you should speak out while you still can, and not throw kids out of planes without their consent, even if you enjoy parachuting in your spare time. There is nothing virtuous about spreading Islam. If MSM photos of hapless Muslims (notice they don't show hapless Hindus or Buddhists) require you to do something for Muslims, send them some Richard Dawkins books (which they will probably burn).

Tim Aurora says

you will be asking every other religion , followed by agnostics , followed by different Christian sects to leave America.

No we won't because no other religion except Islam, including atheists, blows people to smithereens because they don't accept their view.

Tim Aurora says

The practical way is for Muslims to find a way to curb the extremist .

This. Finally someone. So obvious.

FP says

Tim Aurora says

The practical way is for Muslims to find a way to curb the extremist .

This. Finally someone. So obvious.

Obviously wrong, you mean. It's the answer you've copied&pasted from countless MSM repetition, just as marcus copied&pasted Wikipedia, so you can pretend you're "smart" and everyone else is a "monkey" or otherwise subhuman. In fact, you're simply wrong. See my comment above.

marcus says

But I will never see that political correctness that strives to focus on the peaceful majority of Muslims is a problem.

Supporting the person who pulls the trigger is nearly as bad as pulling the trigger yourself

How do you call someone an extremist if he's studied your holy book extensively and found that it clearly instructs him to wage war on unbelievers? I think what these fools are saying is they want to make Muslims more ignorant of their Quran. Which is ironic since we keep supporting SA which exports oil and madrasaahs to facilitate the study of that book of siphilitic fantasies.

FP says

Tim Aurora says

The practical way is for Muslims to find a way to curb the extremist .

This. Finally someone. So obvious.

Yup. Problem solved. Thank You guys. I'll nominate you for the peace prize.

Strategist says

Yup. Problem solved. Thank You guys. I'll nominate you for the peace prize.

Sarcasm doesn't usually work online. They'll imagine that they've converted you. They've been so badly blinded by their preferred media that they can't see their proposed response is the status quo that has caused the ongoing carnage and deprivations of liberty we see worldwide, and that has continued losing around the world.

Strategist says

Yup. Problem solved. Thank You guys. I'll nominate you for the peace prize.

How ironic given your username that you don't distinguish strategy from tactics.

Two "ways" in a sentence is not a cure, just answering a question with a question...

FP says

Tim Aurora says

The practical way is for Muslims to find a way to curb the extremist .

FP says

Strategist says

Yup. Problem solved. Thank You guys. I'll nominate you for the peace prize.

How ironic given your username that you don't distinguish strategy from tactics.

You presented neither strategy nor tactic. You presented a dream that has never come true in the 1,400 years of Islamic history. While your kind waits, millions suffer human rights abuse, torture, death, and terrorism.

Strategist says

You presented a dream that has never come true

I presented a dream??? WTF?

FP says

Strategist says

You presented a dream that has never come true

I presented a dream??? WTF?

I am guessing what he means is that a 'goal without a plan is a wish'

The proposed goal is nothing new or original.

Gad Saad on Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome

www.youtube.com/embed/bS1z7hJPzY0

When they say "We won't let hate divide us." they're not talking about Islamists. They're talking about ignoring counter-factuals that hurt their narrative that only Whites can be Hateful.

MMR says

FP says

Strategist says

You presented a dream that has never come true

I presented a dream??? WTF?

I am guessing what he means is that a 'goal without a plan is a wish'

The proposed goal is nothing new or original.

First, no it is not a goal. The goal is to stop Islamic terrism.

Second, the idea that this cannot be achieved without the cooperation of the Islamic community is apparently, and quite surprising, original for this site.

A basic principle in fighting an asymmetric war is that it cannot be won as long as the insurgent groups can find support in the population.

FP says

it cannot be won as long as the insurgent groups can find support in the population.

As long as the Koran finds support in the population, the express commands to "strike terror into" the enemies of Allah and "kill the disbelievers" can likewise find support. You have essentially stated that you cannot win a 'war on terror' as long as the Koran finds support in the population.

And, besides, Islam causes more problems in addition to terror. In the long run, the spread of Sharia is ultimately even worse. Hammond's description of Islamization outlines the medium term consequences also, including sporadic murders and episodic genocides. The painfully familiar descent from 20% Muslim to 90% Muslim population is well documented: it starts with allowing in Hijrah, and ends in Sharia. That is why most countries that have allowed themselves to become more than 20% Muslim are now more than 90% Muslim. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You mentioned Balzac. On present trend, France will have a Muslim majority within a century. Most countries with Muslim majorities ban Voltaire, and would either execute him or allow him to be killed with impunity by a vigilante Sharia patrol. Already multiple Birmingham government schools ban parts of the GCSE as un-Islamic, at 22% Muslim population. France with a Muslim majority would ultimately ban Voltaire, Sartre, Charlie Hebdo, and most of the best of French culture.

FP says

First, no it is not a goal. The goal is to stop Islamic terrism.

Second, the idea that this cannot be achieved without the cooperation of the Islamic community is apparently, and quite surprising, original for this site.

A basic principle in fighting an asymmetric war is that it cannot be won as long as the insurgent groups can find support in the population.

Islam is a very violent religion. No Muslim group or infidels have ever succeeded in making Islam peaceful. The only way to make Islam peaceful is to approach it with a long term solution. First:
1. Control their dictators.
2. Kill as many terrorists as possible.
3. Make their dictators subdue those who preach hate and violence.
4. Educate the masses with real education.
5. Expose the masses to intense criticism of Islam.
6. Slowly introduce democracy.