patrick.net

curious2 says

Muslims would and do vote to do exactly that, and feel good about it

Nobody is advocating importing anywhere near enough Muslims to vote in sharia. Religions change over time. People in the religion just believe what their neighbors believe. That's how humans work.

curious2 says

The question ultimately is how to get Muslims to reject Islam.

That's unlikely to happen, especially when the current leaders just kill the people who do reject Islam.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

curious2 says

Daniel Pipes

I take it this is a mistake; Daniel Pipes is an Islam critic, no?

"Bolstering Moderate Muslims

by Daniel Pipes
***
When I suggest that radical Muslims are the problem and that moderate Muslims are the solution, the nearly inevitable retort from most people is: "What moderate Muslims?"
***
American government and other powerful institutions should give priority to locating, meeting with, funding, forwarding, empowering, and celebrating those brave Muslims who, at personal risk, stand up and confront the totalitarians."

The issue with his position, especially as advocated by Hillary Clinton and others, is that it means celebrating and empowering and funding Islam. They might call it "moderate," but it concedes the beachhead. Imagine if they said let's take the "moderate" migrants who promise to stay on the shore and never to come further inland. That doesn't work. Celebrating the dead charlatan Mohamed and funding and empowering a subset of his followers, at the expense of people who denounce his hateful fraud, is a mistake.

curious2 says

The issue with his position

Pipes has been warning against radical Islam for decades. He believes that the best way to fight it is for more moderate Muslims to lead the others out of the dark ages. I've yet to hear a better idea.

YesYNot says

That's unlikely to happen, especially when the current leaders just kill the people who do reject Islam.

That is why all Islamic leaders must be under secular democratic control until they are ready to fully accept secularism.

YesYNot says

I've yet to hear a better idea.

Even within his ideas, he criticizes America for mistaking a smile from a veil, e.g. mistaking the Saudis for moderates. A better idea that he would probably agree with is to quit funding KSA (which funds Islamic terrorism) and Pakistan (which is a terrorist state). I would go further: a problem with Islam is the prohibition against blasphemy prevents those countries from having anything like the Reformation and Enlightenment. Those countries are currently mobilizing a worldwide plan against blasphemy, including online, and the Islamic State is publishing kill lists including westerners in western countries in order to enable Sharia patrol murders like what we see in Bangladesh and the Netherlands. In addition to cutting off all funding for Islam, we should ban Muslim immigration and celebrate and fund blasphemy against Islam. We should recognize that Islam is a totalitarian doctrine similar to the Nazis (Muslims and Nazis both recognized that fact during WWII), and worse than communism, and proceed accordingly.

curious2 says

In addition to cutting off all funding for Islam, we

the way to do this is to starve the beast is by cutting back on our oil addiction. The best way to do that is to tax our fucking oil consumption already. We are 20 years too late on this, but it's never too late to start. In the mean time, we shouldn't be making the radical Islamist's life easier by agreeing with them.

YesYNot says

The best way to do that is to

During the campaign, candidate Trump said "we take the oil" in Iraq and Libya among other places. We shouldn't be paying money to people who would kill us. They don't respect our right to live. The only reason we pay them is Petrodollar baksheesh including via the MIC. If they had the guns and we had the oil, they'd take what they want and make us do the work for them. As it is, we are already doing the work for them, and too many of us have been hypnotized to believe in doing that.

YesYNot says

we shouldn't be making the radical Islamist's life easier by agreeing with them.

Islam says what it says. You might fool yourself into believing that it doesn't, but you don't fool anyone else.

curious2 says

Islam says what it says.

People are tribal group thinkers. They do and think what their neighbors do and think. Go to a bunch of different Christian churches in America.
Within each church, you will find a lot of similar views. Between churches, the views will differ considerably. In big cities, this is by selection. In small towns, it's because people are fitting in with their community. It's not because people within a church all happen to interpret the Bible the same way, which is different from a church in the next state over. Imo, is not so much what is in the book as what everybody in the community is saying it means.

curious2 says

Trump said "we take the oil" in Iraq

This would get rid of any pretense that we fought the war for moral reasons. It would not solve the Saudi Arabia problem or be an easy thing to do either. It would be much easier to just use less oil.

YesYNot says

This would get rid of any pretense that we fought the war for moral reasons.

That NATO MSM pretense fooled only NATO voters who wanted to be fooled, like what you said about people who imagine sugary soda would somehow be healthy. It's the equivalent of believing that bombing Libya did not constitute "hostilities," that the latest coup d'etat in Egypt was not a coup d'etat, and that bombing Syrians and financing Sunni militias to drive them out of their homes and into other countries as rapefugees is for their benefit. Anyone who can believe even half those lies is living in an Alice in Wonderland world, believing countless impossible things before breakfast.

YesYNot says

It would not solve the Saudi Arabia problem or be an easy thing to do either.

It might be the only way to solve the KSA problem, and paying them more $ won't make it any easier.

YesYNot says

It would be much easier to just use less oil.

Yes, and President Trump has talked about expanding domestic drilling including off both coasts. Other energy sources are advancing rapidly but are not yet close to replacing oil. Besides, even if we ended our own consumption of oil entirely, other countries would continue buying from KSA.

curious2 says

Yes, and President Trump has talked about expanding domestic drilling including off both coasts.

He has already rolled back cafe standards which would not be necessary if we taxed oil. But we don't, and cafe works. curious2 says

other countries would continue buying from KSA.

If we taxed oil like Europe does we would drive different cars, and the price of oil would be in the sewer. We wouldn't fly so much either.

The goal is not to avoid buying a fungible commodity from x, y, or Z. The goal is to drive the price down. That way, oil rich countries all take a hit regardless of who buys their oil.

YesYNot says

. Imo,

You persist in believing what you want to believe, what is politic and in your interest to believe, having apparently become more managerial than scientific. Go along to get along. You ignore so much about Islam and the differences between Islam and Christianity that it's hard to know where to begin. The Koran is the most widely read book in the Islamic world, and it is recited verbatim even to people who are illiterate. Unlike the Bible, the Koran has officially one author. To the extent different interpretations can be found, they are at the edges, like two KKKlansmen debating how many loops to use in a lynching knot: they both agree on the main result. It is frustrating to see you insist on ignorance and lies, maybe IRL you can order people to act as if they believe them but the lies remain lies. I remember your lies about refugees not becoming involved in terrorism, and you persisted in those too, claiming no refugees had been arrested for terrorism while linking a source that listed three. None so blind as those who will not see.

The difference between "radical" and "moderate" Muslims comes down to timing. Radical Muslims want to impose Sharia right now, by force. So-called "moderate" Muslims want to grow and spread Islam, increasing its power organically until resistance becomes futile, and then impose Sharia. You seem to promote the second strategy, which is an Islamic strategy, rather than standing for the Enlightenment.

curious2 says

That NATO MSM pretense fooled only NATO voters who wanted to be fooled, like what you said about people who imagine sugary soda

I think it also fools kids in our country who sign up for the military. Who would sign up to be a mercenary for grunt pay?

YesYNot says

kids in our country who sign up for the military.

They are a subset of NATO voters, so drop the "also." After seeing what Islam says and does, most Army and FBI voted for President Trump.

BTW, I updated my comment, will paste here too: The difference between "radical" and "moderate" Muslims comes down to timing. Radical Muslims want to impose Sharia right now, by force. So-called "moderate" Muslims want to grow and spread Islam, increasing its power organically until resistance becomes futile, and then impose Sharia. You seem to promote the second strategy, which is an Islamic strategy, rather than standing for the Enlightenment.

curious2 says

claiming no refugees had been arrested for terrorism while linking a source that listed three. None so blind as those who will not see.

I'm pretty sure that I agreed that the statistic that I read was misleading. It qualified terrorism as acts labeled terrorism on us soil iirc.

As for my opinions on Muslims, I've known quite a few Muslims who were basically typical secular Americans. My opinion on what would work the best is consistent with my views on people. I do think that Islam is a mess, and that would explain the higher rate of terrorism by Muslims.

So let's hear your strategy for convincing Muslims to abandon Islam.

curious2 says

rather than standing for the Enlightenment.

How do you do this?

For a start, see my comment above. America beat communism and fascism, though some of the latter came to America wrapped in an American flag. You have to start by recognizing the problem: Islam hates us. You don't win by importing "moderate" Nazis and claiming to respect Hitler while firebombing Dresden. We've been at war for 15 years, making matters worse, because we're fighting mostly on the wrong side; it goes back to Nixon's deals to expand the war in southeast Asia and the MIC.

YesYNot says

How do you do this?

See all of my comments. While you opine from ignorance and wishful thinking, I stick to evidence and reason.

I agree that we should celebrate blasphemy. That's just for the principle though. It's not going to get people to abandon their religion. Especially if it's the curious2 says

for them, religion is the founding assumption and ultimate conclusion, "the alpha and the omega

How does our funding of ksa compare with our help keeping the price of oil high?

curious2 says

While you opine from ignorance and wishful thinking, I stick to evidence and reason.

Don't break your arm or your back. I'd hate to hear about a Dr visit.

Meanwhile, in a random sweep, London Authorities arrested a man with a backpack full of knives for a Knife Intifada in London.

Here's his "Palestine Aid Convoy" Video from a few years back.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4455510/Westminster-terrorist-named-Mohammed-Khalid-Omar-Ali.html

Just in case you were wondering where all the Muslims in Europe got their ideas for truck and knife attacks, check out what's been happening is Israel these past few years.

Fuck Islam!

YesYNot says

How does our funding of ksa compare with our help keeping the price of oil high?

Keeping the price of oil high is the principal way in which America funds KSA and the Petrodollar baksheesh system, including the deficit spending on which many "intelligence" careers have depended. We borrow money from KSA and the whole world to pay for the military that protects them, and the Petrodollar system enables the borrowing.

curious2 says

Keeping the price of oil high is the principal way in which America funds KSA

Do you think the petrol dollar keeps the price of oil high or the price of a dollar high? What do you think a tax on oil and high cafe standards would do?

Our wars subsidize oil use. We might as well tax oil use and use the revenue to pay for the middle east wars.

YesYNot says

Our wars subsidize oil use. We might as well tax oil use and use the revenue to pay for the middle east wars.

Pollution subsidizes oil use too. We need a $3.00 per gallon tax on oil to pay for the health problems caused by pollution.

Strategist says

Pollution subsidizes oil use too

It subsidizes coal use too. Autos pollute diffusely, harming city and suburban people. Coal burning shits on everyone downwind. Public health expenditures subsidizes coal mine operators who treat employee health like somebody else's problem.

YesYNot says

Do you think the petrol dollar keeps the price of oil high or the price of a dollar high?

The USD. The wars keeping KSA's competitors offline (Iraq, Libya, Syria) keep both high, enabling the game to continue.

YesYNot says

What do you think a tax on oil and high cafe standards would do?

Either would reduce demand and thus prices. The W administration campaigned on the opposite, including a tax shift that subsidized SUVs weighing more than 3 tons, in order to increase demand and thus set record prices. The popularity of SUVs began during the Clinton administration, due partly to some regulatory decisions at that time. They are fundamentally inferior vehicles, using 2x more fuel to do essentially the same work, but their popularity increased oil demand and thus oil prices.

A generational shift occurred as the corruption of Nixon's Petrodollar deals spread through the government. As late as 1980, GHW Bush campaigned on taxing oil, even though he had made much of his own fortune in oil. By 2003, GW Bush was doing the opposite, increasing oil demand and fighting the Saudis' enemies for them, making everyone dependent on KSA oil and setting record prices. Also, as has been discussed elsewhere on PatNet, control of the oil makes higher prices advantageous for the patronage networks that control it. Some people say it's about cheap oil, but that's misleading. It's about controlling the places where oil can be produced cheaply, and then selling it more expensively, and thus maximizing the net revenues to the controlling patronage network. KSA was producing oil for $1/bbl and selling for over $140/bbl, almost all profit, and much of that $ got invested in buying America (including buying influence in America). Bandar Bush did a great job for his Saudi family, W got a second term, etc.

curious2 says

The USD. The wars keeping KSA's competitors offline (Iraq, Libya, Syria) keep both high, enabling the game to continue.

The first part of that is what I believe is driving our policy wrt SA.

I don't think that keeping Iraq, Libya, and Syria offline is a deliberate strategy to increase oil prices. I wouldn't be surprised, though, to find out that opposition to a gas tax or cafe standards has something to do with this issue.curious2 says

Either would reduce demand and thus prices....
GW Bush was doing the opposite, increasing oil demand and fighting the Saudis' enemies for them, making everyone dependent on KSA oil and setting record prices. Also, as has been discussed elsewhere on PatNet, control of the oil makes higher prices advantageous for the patronage networks that control it

At least we agree that cafe standards and an oil tax would be good wrt this issue. Trump is likely to reduce cafe standards, because he can. We'll see on the gas tax. Republicans were not OK with it 2 years ago, and Trump doesn't appear to have much sway over them.

YesYNot says

Libya

Think again, and notice the videos of Tony Blair meeting with Kadaffy, who made deals with Shell and wanted to make deals with American companies. The BBC had previously trumpeted a 2004 meeting, but that went nowhere with Bandar Bush in charge at the White House. The 2010 meeting should have launched a policy change, but Hillary Clinton (and the Deep State) intervened on behalf of her Saudi clients.

The Blair visit was part of an international effort to rehabilitate Kadaffy's image as prelude to petrochemical deals off Libya. Kadaffy had been falsely blamed for blowing up a Pan Am flight over Scotland, when in fact there had been more to that story. The most likely organizer was the former President Assad (father of the current President), but he was protected by Russia, and Libya was isolated, so a decision was made to punish Libya instead, partly because Libya was isolated and had posed more of a threat to KSA market share and the Petrodollar. (The US DEA had also reportedly been involved in weakening security on the Pan Am flight, btw.) Following years of isolation and consequent poverty, the aging Kadaffy thought of his family's interests and agreed to take the blame and to deal with American and European companies on their terms.

Look at a map: Libya could have piped oil and gas to Sicily and then into mainland Europe at a lower cost than KSA. There are already subsea pipelines longer than that farther north, e.g. Russia-Germany. If they wanted, they could probably have piped directly from Libyan oil and gas fields across to the European mainland. Enter Hillary Clinton with Hillary's War on behalf of her Saudi clients, extending into Syria by shipping Kadaffy's arsenal to Sunni militias (including al quaida) in Syria. Patronage networks are primarily about loyalty, not ideology: KSA would have been happy with Bush or Clinton, but the Saudis do seem to like putting women in charge of NATO countries, partly for the same reason that KSA doesn't let women drive cars.

zzyzzx says

I feel safe already.

Leftists like Islam because subconsciously they're ashamed of how they look, and know that they'd look better wearing islamic clothes

curious2 says

You don't win by importing "moderate" Nazis

Excellent point. And Islam is inherently more violent and intolerant that Naziism.

Booger says

It makes sense once you understand that women secretly long for strong men to control them. It's right at the center of female sexual desire.

Some of them give in to this desire and run off to join Islam because it gives them a deep fulfillment of the biologically determined gender roles that the West is now too weak to admit is the obvious truth. These women have seen a future of weak feminized men in the West, and they reject it, knowing at a fundamental level that feminism is cultural suicide.

Ironically, feminists got what they asked for, a world where women and men are indistinguishable, and it is definitely not making them happy, so some of them are running back toward the past.

curious2 says

Enter Hillary Clinton with Hillary's War on behalf of her Saudi clients, extending into Syria

I don't know what part of HRC's motivation in Libya was hubris about the potential outcome or what part had to do with keeping the petrodollar deal going and currying favor with Saudi donors. The link to the guardian article regarding W. Clark and NATO after the link to your post had reference to:

a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years",

I guess this would have been a plan from Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. It's readiness after 9/11 suggests that they were planning this out or at least daydreaming about it for some time prior to 9/11.

My take is that this is about right:

Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that "the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource." As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has "motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states":

I would bet HRC thinks she is acting in the best interest of the US by slowly moving through the countries that the neocon Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz put on a list. I don't know if I agree with her, but the faster that we can get off of oil, the faster we can get the fuck out of the middle east. Prior to getting out entirely, if oil prices drop, SA's reserves (treasury bonds) will be liquidated. At that point and after the petrodollar falls, we will see how dramatically the petrodollar was (is now) propping up the US by keeping borrowing costs down. Since our borrowing is in dollars, we don't have to worry as much about our old debt as we would if we borrowed in somebody else's currency.

Back to the original intent of the thread. I read this summary of the Pew research study from 2013.
A couple of things jump out at me:
(1) There is a huge diversity of views within various Muslim communities. For example, in five of the countries, the percent of Muslims who wanted Sharia law to be the official law was 8-12%. In Afghanistan, it is 99%. In many other countries, it's more than 80%.
This supports my assertion that individuals tend to go along with whatever their peers believe. The beliefs of the masses can be set top down (from religious leaders) or bottom up (putting pressure on religious leaders to conform), but they are not strictly tied to a book. This applies to both Christianity and Islam.

(2) Many dislike or are worried about ISIS.

that most people in several countries with significant Muslim populations have an unfavorable view of ISIS, including virtually all respondents in Lebanon and 94% in Jordan.
...
In many cases, people in countries with large Muslim populations are as concerned as Western nations about the threat of Islamic extremism, and have become increasingly concerned in recent years. About two-thirds of people in Nigeria (68%) and Lebanon (67%) said in 2016 that they are very concerned about Islamic extremism in their country, both up significantly since 2013.
...
Our 2011 survey of Muslim Americans found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims (48%) say their own religious leaders have not done enough to speak out against Islamic extremists.

This supports my assertion that what ISIS says reflects what ISIS believes. It doesn't reflect what most Muslims around the world believe.

(3) Muslim religiosity in the US is about the same as Christian religiosity.

What this means is that in a secular country with a low Muslim population, most Muslims do not believe it's their way or the highway. About 30 to 35% of the people in each religion think that theirs is the only true faith. Muslims in the US are even coming around on homosexuality. Now, 39% think it should be accepted in society.

Now, I don't think this means that Muslims in an Islamic country would accept me or treat me well. I fully realize that there are plenty who would behead an atheist like me. Many of these countries are living in the Islamic dark ages, and I'd never go there. In others, I'd go, but not waive an atheist flag, and I'd never live there. My biggest concern about importing a huge number of Muslims into the US is that in large enough numbers they'd try to bring us down into that mindset. It's bad enough that we have so many Christians who are denying science because of their beliefs. We don't need some even more backwards beliefs to overcome. But that doesn't mean that we need a religious test on all immigrants either.

YesYNot, if being religious and wanting to kill blasphemers and apostates is the same to you, yes, there is no difference between Christianity and Islam.