"In addition, the traditional script of the Qur’an exhorts repulsion of ‘others’ much more than acceptance."

That sentence describes a lot of hard core Christians as well. Most of the piece does.

What's this alliance between "left leaning groups" and fundamentalist Islam? If you're not with you then we're allied with Osama Bin Laden is that the logic?

"What's this alliance between "left leaning groups" and fundamentalist Islam"

I read that too and rolled my eyes.

A moderate voice for democracy and equality in Islam? It's needed before an entire population becomes legitimately shut out of the rest of the global community (and within our own borders).

'Moderate Islam' - heh, that's funny.

And this is different from the Bible how? All religious texts suffer this, not just the Qur'an.

If Islam was 'moderate' the moderates would force out the 'extremists' everywhere and turn them in. Take control of their own destiny. Not happening.

Leaves big, (and fair) questions.

"That sentence describes a lot of hard core Christians as well. Most of the piece does."

The moonbat flitters out of his cave to proclaim cultural relativity - again. Prove it for once, idiot.

"What's this alliance between "left leaning groups" and fundamentalist Islam"

What's it based on? Hmmm. Shared IQ deficiency. Hatred for democracy and freedom. A proven lust for genocide against unbelievers.

Those referred to as 'moderates' are actually apostates to those who mimic Mo's life and follow the Quran to the letter, as they are commanded to.

jose - no, Christianity is a religion that developed out of an economic mode that was encouraging people to settle, and engage in stable agriculturalism rather than function within the traditional mode of nomadic wandering. Settlements require collaboration, getting along with others - even those who are different - and the basis of Christianity is this 'Love Thy Neighbour' - and a rejection of hostility to Others.

Islam as a religion or ideology developed out of an economic mode that was seeing its traditional migratory lands lost to these expanding settlements. It developed to fight the settlements and saw anyone else as Other - and was hostile to Others.

So- your attempt to correlate Christianity and Islam - is wrong.

DThomas - what's your point? There is obviously an alliance between the left and fundamentalist or fascist Islam. The ideology of both is similar - a utopian ideal, to be attained when all the people are homogeneous in belief and behaviour, a top-down governance run by Wise Men, the rejection of individualism, rejection of reason, rejection of dissent, rejection of entrepreneurship, rejection of private ownership and ideas. Islamic fascism and the left walk hand in hand on all of that.

Where they differ - and the Left ignores this difference, is that the Left promotes specific minorities - who are viewed as somehow, closer to Truth than others (homosexuality in particular).

Actually - I see this more frequent voicing of diversity in Islam a tremendous 'step forward' towards the reform of Islam. It has to reform. It can't operate as it is - a political and social mode that is only functional in a nomadic economy, and, in an industrial economy, can only operate when 'kept' by the mainstream - ie, as a welfare economy or - funded by The King and oil.

That is, it's a dependent population who are not able to move into a self-organized economy.

"And this is different from the Bible how? All religious texts suffer this, not just the Qur'an."
Posted by: Lore_Weaver at September 4, 2007 5:15 PM

Islamists act on their instructions from Allah, written in the Koran, literally, and daily, all over the world.

Seen any reports of 'self explosive syndrome' or 'head lobbing' or 'kidnapping' of infidels lately, at all?

Jose -- "In addition, the traditional script of the Qur’an exhorts repulsion of ‘others’ much more than acceptance."

That sentence describes a lot of hard core Christians as well. Most of the piece does."

You are mixing apples and oranges. The discussion is about the text of the Koran, not the followers of Islam. The only valid comparision would be with the text of the New Testament.

How well do you know it? Can you provide us with a single instance where the New Testament urges "the expulsion of others"?

The New Testament does say that there is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus Christ. The last time I read it, everyone is invited to respond to the One who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me".

Including you.

Posted by: Sounder at September 4, 2007 5:21 PM
"And this is different from the Bible how? All religious texts suffer this, not just the Qur'an."
Posted by: Lore_Weaver at September 4, 2007 5:15 PM

Islamists act on their instructions from Allah, written in the Koran, literally, and daily, all over the world.

Seen any reports of 'self explosive syndrome' or 'head lobbing' or 'kidnapping' of infidels lately, at all?

Ya, because other religions don't do this at all? I'm not giving a pass to Islam, I'm saying all religions are equally flawed.

"There is no moderate or immoderate Islam."

Spencer said it best: the Turkish PM dismissed the entire framework upon which the West has staked its survival.

Trouble is, few are listening and nobody -- NOBODY -- is reporting.

And so the people continue to be deceived because the truth about Islam challenges the fundamentals of multiculturalism and political correctness.

The Islamists think that the world will change to suit them.
Something is going to change alright ..... but it won't be what these losers think it's going to be.

I agree with Sounder, If the 'moderate' Moslems deplore the terrorist 'Extremist' Moslems, why don't they expose them and or get rid of them?
I can't understand why they let them destroy the Moslem religion by perverting the Koran, and using it to explain their disgusting acts.

ET"and the basis of Christianity is this 'Love Thy Neighbour' - and a rejection of hostility to Others."

I'm with Ghandi on this one, I like your Christ. I don't like your christians they are so unlike your Christ. Most Christians don't act anything like the Bible says they should in my opinion. They cherry pick what they want out of that book and ignore the rest.

This comment section is literally oozing with hostility for every kind of foriegner including "others" within the borders of Canada. Everyone just a little bit different is the enemy to be hated and feared, even Europeans are enemies nowadays. They're all secretly out to get you somehow and colluding with Al Qaeda.

None of this is new of course but the bullshit is getting laid on even thicker than normal when you start bemoaning intolerance and xenophobia in others.

"There is obviously an alliance between the left and fundamentalist or fascist Islam. The ideology of both is similar - a utopian ideal, to be attained when all the people are homogeneous in belief and behaviour, a top-down governance run by Wise Men, the rejection of individualism, rejection of reason, rejection of dissent, rejection of entrepreneurship, rejection of private ownership and ideas. Islamic fascism and the left walk hand in hand on all of that."

I'm not aware that Osama bin Laden has advocated any particular form of government structure. Demanding Sharia law is fine, but how it would be implemented is another question.

The term Islamic Fascism is, itself, not a useful term for describing this particular phenomena. Fascism is a Hegelen philosophy, which sees the state as an organic, living institution, whose survival must come before any individual needs. It calls for an explicitly bureacratic, top-down management of society, with no democracy and no individual rights, beyond the right to serve the state.

The Islamic terrorists operate on a completely different level. They are decentralized, and have little in the way of formal command-and-control, the way we understand them. They have no opinion, that I am aware of, on economic policies that are key to understanding fascism. Bin Laden pays lip service to the imperialism of the west, but this seems to me to be rhetorical fluff.

One of the many things I find amusing about the right, is their dialog on Islam. They call for Islam to modernize and reform, while simultaneously claiming that it cannot happen. Once again, this is because the right secretly admire Islamic terrorists for their brutality, particularly towards gays, and their intolerance of "cultural decandence." I've often wondered why Mark Steyn doesn't simply convert to Islam and move his family to Iran. He'd probably be quite happy they, from the sound of his writing.

Behead all those who question the infallibility of the lying, thieving, raping, murdering, enslaving pedophile Mohammed and his invisible, cloud-dwelling imaginary friend Allah!

The left and the Islam followers have a lot in common. They both let their government or in the Islam's case their Islam/government rule and dictate their every action and belief. This keeps them from thinking for themselves and makes them irresponsible for their every action.
The left worship the state, it is their God who will take care of their every need, from cradle to the grave, it will set out laws to dictate what we do and how we act.This keeps them like children relying on the State for their every need.
The Muslems worship Mohamed. who wrote a book that sets out how they eat, worship, have sex, do war, go to the bathroom. This keeps them like children relying on the Quran for their every need.

Maybe it is just me but I see a lot of differences between Christians and Muslims.

For instance, when a terrorist attacks Muslims you do not see Christians parading in the street cheering.

When someone insults Christians through a speech or cartoons then the insulter may get a strongly worded letter or a product boycott. Muslims riot and kill people in response.

Muslims immigrate out to western countries but few westerners immigrate into Muslim ones. In fact when Muslims immigrate to a historically Christian country like Canada their religious beliefs are accommodated. Do Islamic countries do the same?

Debatably, Christians have improved the societies they have settled in term of government, medicine, equality, and tolerance. Seems to me that in every country that Muslims settle soon terrorism, crime and violence inevitably follows.

Perhaps this indicates that western Christianity based countries are superior.

"The left and the Islam followers have a lot in common. They both let their government or in the Islam's case their Islam/government rule and dictate their every action and belief. This keeps them from thinking for themselves and makes them irresponsible for their every action.
The left worship the state, it is their God who will take care of their every need, from cradle to the grave, it will set out laws to dictate what we do and how we act.This keeps them like children relying on the State for their every need.
The Muslems worship Mohamed. who wrote a book that sets out how they eat, worship, have sex, do war, go to the bathroom. This keeps them like children relying on the Quran for their every need."

That's funny. I'm a leftist, and I have a nice job, my own home, I pay my taxes. I actually don't worship the state, though all available evidence indicates that public, single-payer healthcare is actually more efficient than private healthcare.

And even if the Left did "worship the state", how does that make them allies of Islam? If Muslims worship one thing, but the Left another, won't the Muslims cut off our heads? Why would we be allies?

p(imaginary(Allah)) = p(imaginary(Zeus)) = p(imaginary(Flying Spaghetti Monster)) = p(imaginary(God))

Most of us are atheists with respect to most Gods man has dreamed of. Some of us just take it one God further.

"Debatably, Christians have improved the societies they have settled in term of government, medicine, equality, and tolerance. Seems to me that in every country that Muslims settle soon terrorism, crime and violence inevitably follows."

That is the funniest thing I have ever read. Thank you, that made my day. Iraq is a disaster area because of Christian leader. The Europeans who slaughtered each other for hundreds of years were Christians. All the while, the Islamic world was actually quite peaceful and, in some ways, culturally more advanced than the west.

Obviously you are not familiar with the history of Canada and the United States. The reason why white people are here, and not the aboriginals, is that the original white inhabitants killed them all.

Keep trying, right-wingers. The SLM awaits your verbiage. Yeehaw!!!! Let's go git that thar Moonbat!!!!

'Moderate Islam' - heh, that's funny.

The vast majority of Muslims are moderate and peaceful. Radical Islam makes up only a small, but important, fraction of Islam.

As to why moderate Muslim doesn't reign in the radicals, one may as well ask why George Bush doesn't do the same. If terrorist groups were easy to get rid of then there wouldn't be any.

Mr. Loathsome and Jose still missing that whole "link to terrorism" thing.

Personally I'm a mind my own business type of guy. People do what they want, have what religion they want, I'm good with it. Its when they come to MY house and start in making me do what they want that I have a problem.

The problem I have with Islam is the same problem I have with the Left: they both seem incapable of minding their own damn business and leaving me to mine.

"As to why moderate Muslim doesn't reign in the radicals, one may as well ask why George Bush doesn't do the same. If terrorist groups were easy to get rid of then there wouldn't be any."

A valid question, considering that Bush is only religious fundamentalist with access to a nuclear weapon.

Of course, only moonbats would consider such questions. Manly right-wingers go on blogs and talk about Islamic hordes outbreading whites and cutting off the heads of left-wingers.

"The problem I have with Islam is the same problem I have with the Left: they both seem incapable of minding their own damn business and leaving me to mine."

Have Muslims been to your house trying to convert you? Have they defiled the white-women in your neighbourhood, or engaged in acts of terrorism? Are they converting your children to Islam?

What about the leftists? If there were no more leftists in the world, how would your life be better?

The answer is, of course, it wouldn't. You'd find some one else to pick on. Again, all right-wing behaviour stems from a combination of homophobia, racism and a fear/fascination with the sexual prowess of non-whites. That is why right-wingers claim to detest Islamic terrorism, while simultaneously, agreeing with much of what Muslims say about the west.

Once again, this is because the right secretly admire Islamic terrorists for their brutality, particularly towards gays, and their intolerance of "cultural decandence."

TSLM, I hope you're having a bad day. That would help explain such a ridiculous pulled-out-of-your-ass statement. OTOH, if you're having a good day, and the above is an example of your usual thinking, you, sir/madam, are a moron.

Wow, the troll are out in full force! Not only are they throwing out inflammatory statements without any shred of evidence, they are also tossing red herring after red herring.

Keep it going, folks! Sooner or later, you'll get people off track and into a flame war you started! (And then proclaim how you totally predicted how insensitive the right is, even though you continue to slander the major religion in the free, civilised world.)

My, the trolls are out in force today.

So, we have an article by "Muslim novelist and exile Tahir Aslam Gora" who knows something of which he speaks, learned through painful experience. But our usual parade of dimwit lefties and apologists, safe in the cushy armchair of Canada, claim to know more about the nature of Islam than he does.
These people are not susceptible to education or embarassment.

Most of us what are atheists - ignorants? Morons? Hermits?

Sorry, but like most of the left you can't play that card. You actually need to back it with facts.

Even if many are not actually Christians, how many claim to be on a given country's census?
Same goes for other religions and cults around the world. You can be an atheist if you like and believe that the rest of us are complete morons or weak-minded, or whatever the term du jour, but you cannot pretend that your 5% of the world's population is somehow a majority. It just doesn't work that way, but it's some kinda belief...

"I'm with Ghandi on this one, I like your Christ......"

You aren't getting Ghandi, Jose, like most moonbats, and, Christians, of which there are 2.1 billion, you are just as ignorant about. That's 2.1 BILLION(twice the size of Muslims), again, idiot. Care to extrapolate from those numbers, when it comes to organized murder and mayhem, who is the problem? Better yet, don't bother.

You and your friend, jeff, repeatedly put your droppings are out there for the world to evaluate. Do you really think in front of all of Kate's viewers, casual and posters, that you come across as very smart? I mean, thread after thread, you are the village idiot. You bring no careful analysis based on data to any discussion, just vapid narcissism, snark and avoidance of any direct rebuttal before you scurry to your next one liner.

You've alluded in past posts to being a druggie, I'm sure it's the closet thing you've found to a spiritual life. It's so obvious.

It's really time to cut off your oxygen. You need to be ignored permanently.

jose - I think it's impossible to accurately say that 'most X do such and such' - ie, 'most Christians' - without extensive substantiation. So, this may be your opinion about what 'most Christians' do - but, that's all it is.

Equally, I don't see the factual evidence for your comment that this blog is 'oozing hostility' for every kind of foreigner including others' (Hmm - what is an 'other' in this sentence if not a foreigner?)

And what's your point about 'bemoaning intolerance and xenophobia in others'? Who are you talking about? Certainly, Islamic fascists exhibit intolerance and xenophobia. Are you saying that we mustn't discuss this??

Self-loathing - the Islamic ideology is pretty clear in the Koran. It is, as I outlined it.

I disagree with you - Islamic fascism is, in my view, a very good terminology for Islamic fundamentalism. It is hardly a product of Hegelianism and is a political mode that existed long before the utopian nonsense of Hegel. And fascism does indeed call for a top-down governance of society - and, like Islam, is against democracy, against the individual; and the duty of the individual - is to serve the 'state' as an Islamic regime. I suggest that you read the Koran.

Your outline of decentralized groups of terrorists is invalid; you are ignoring the ideology that bonds them - Islamic fascism.

I am glad you find our discussion amusing; that's a very typical reaction of a leftist - they frequently inform us, smugly, of their superiority by telling us that they are 'amused' at our seemingly childish and irrelevant chatter.

I'd also appreciate some substantive evidence for you informing us that 'the right' 'secretly admire Islamic terrorists for their brutality'. Could you provide us, please, with the evidence?
Thanks.

Oh- and your conclusion about Mark Steyn - that he'd be happy as a convert to Islam - is similar in tone and substance (ie, no substance) and is the same specious nonsense as your other opinions. You see, Steyn values individual responsibility and reason - and both are rejected by Islam. I suggest you read Steyn a bit more. And also, read the Koran.

Furthermore - your rebuttal to the argument explaining the similarities between the left and Islamism - is empty. So what if you have a job, a home and pay taxes? That's not a perspective.

..The point is - the left's rejection of indivdual responsibility (and your comment about health care is an example)..the left's rejection of private services in favour of State or Public services - which are notoriously inefficient. And, the left's rejection of dissent by others - it removes dissent by instituting cultural relativism - which refuses to evaluate any viewpoint. Then, there's its utopianism - a perspective that views that 'everything will be perfect' if only the state controlled everything and all was evenly distributed to all - a situation akin to a bowl of jello...etc.

Could someone in the "they're all the same" crowd please give us the Christian/Jewish/Buddhist version of the tree telling a Muslim that there's a Jew hiding behind it, and that the Muslim should kill the Jew?

Could someone please explain George Galloway and Robert Fisk? Could someone please explain the subject of Robert Fulford's weekend piece, the one about female U of T academic who fully supports female genital mutilation, and naturally blames imperialism on its demonization?

(As Fulord notes, "she's embraced one of the great lies of modern liberalism: Any culture is as good as any other culture and its tradition-endorsed practices (no matter how misguided, harmful and dangerous) deserve respect."

By the way, nice picture over at thereligionofpeace.com: British Muslims holding signs that read "Jesus is the slave of Allah" and "Islam will conquer Rome."

Actually, funny thing: I was watching this old video about Gordon Ramsay going to 10 Downing to cook for Tony Blair and Vlad Putin some years ago. There across the street were the same Muslim types holding the same signs and shouting "Tony Blair go to hell!" Amongst them were a bunch a idiot left-wing (redundant, yes) Brits aiding them in their cause.

But no, there's no Left/Islamofacist axis.

Of course Christians have in the past been guilty of many things. To ignore Christian history would be a silly as ignoring Islam’s present guilt. Modern Christian countries (and many Asian) rank far better than Modern Muslim countries in all measures of advancement. Islamic, totalitarian and Communist countries are predominantly at the bottom.

Ah Mr. Loathing, if there were no more Leftists in the world I would be able to go shooting without fear of ending the day in jail. My taxes would be maybe a 10th of what they are now. Best of all, I'd be able to go BUY an x-ray if I needed one instead of having to stand in line for the one functioning x-ray machine in town.

That's what the Left has been doing to me these last 50 years. It irritates me.

"Have Muslims been to your house trying to convert you? Have they defiled the white-women in your neighbourhood, or engaged in acts of terrorism? Are they converting your children to Islam?"

No, but there was this one time friends of mine watched these two airplanes fly into the World Trade Center from their kitchen window. I take that personally, know what I mean?

"Again, all right-wing behaviour stems from a combination of homophobia, racism and a fear/fascination with the sexual prowess of non-whites."

This is even funnier than the comment about health care.

While it is true that there are contradictions between the holy texts and behaviour of Muslims and Christians, right now, it is a violent Muslim sect (Shiite-Wahabi-Islamic fascism) that is undermining governments, attacking the West, and murdering their own people. Say what you want about Christianity, that is not happening.

It seems fairly simple to me. Some criminal types are "interpreting" the Koran for their own nefarious means. My problem with the Muslim people is they don't seem willing to go after these nutbars - because they feel intimidated and/or they have bought the fringe left viewpoint that anything against Bush must be a good thing.

Maybe if these fascists weren't oppressing and killing their own people in large swaths I would be willing to enterain some route cause argument. For now the root cause of Islamic terrorism is Islamis fascism. Nothing will satisfy or molify them, their mode is war.

Hey, was that the same Gandhi who was Hitler's pen pal, advised the Jews to let the Nazis kill them, tried to regulate his wife's bowel movements and slept with teenaged girls?

Just askin'

Yep, that'd be the same guy Kathy. Drank his own pee too, as I recall.

Say, do you happen to know how many Indians Ghandi managed to kill in the Great Partition? I used to know but can't remember just now.

"A valid question, considering that Bush is only religious fundamentalist with access to a nuclear weapon."

Oh, just stop it before you break something. Bush is a United Methodist, for Chrissakes.

ET,

I always enjoy your posts. As they are from an atheist and a scientist, commenting in hindsight, scrubbed clean of any spiritual meaning - they make sense.

Reminds me a bit of Frank J. Tipler's book - 'The Physics of Christianity,' where he attempts to justify Catholicism through the sterilizing lens of so-called scientific observation.

Preposterous, but disarming.

Lore Weaver,

"Ya, because other religions don't do this at all? I'm not giving a pass to Islam, I'm saying all religions are equally flawed."

You are, however, giving a pass to moral and cultural relativism.

Teddi,

"I can't understand why they let them destroy the Moslem religion by perverting the Koran, and using it to explain their disgusting acts."

Have you ever read the Quran? The Sura's? The Hadith?

Obviously not. All of these, as you call them, disgusting acts, are commanded and rewarded by allah. Violence is foundational to Islam. Remove the the hate and the violence and Islam loses it's difference. It becomes redundant to Christianity and/or Judaism.

I suggest reading Aayan Hirsi Ali's book - 'Infidel,' to start.

Jose,

"I'm with Ghandi on this one, I like your Christ. I don't like your christians they are so unlike your Christ. Most Christians don't act anything like the Bible says they should in my opinion. They cherry pick what they want out of that book and ignore the rest."

Well, why didn't you say so all along - instead of clinging to the roof, upside down? Indeed, to live a life like Christ; to be a true Christian is impossible without the constant help of the Holy Spirit. Now try applying the same measure against the life of Mohammad and the commands and rewards in the Quran. There's where you will see the difference and stop calling them equal.

You were getting somewhere. But alas, soon hanging upside down again.

"This comment section is literally oozing with hostility for every kind of foriegner including "others" within the borders of Canada. Everyone just a little bit different is the enemy to be hated and feared, even Europeans are enemies nowadays. They're all secretly out to get you somehow and colluding with Al Qaeda."

How is it that a discussion on ideology always reverts to racism in the small, perverted, upside down mind?

And even if the Left did "worship the state", how does that make them allies of Islam? If Muslims worship one thing, but the Left another, won't the Muslims cut off our heads? Why would we be allies?

They will cut off your heads when you and Talaban Jack stop being their useful idiots.

re moderate islam -

Lawyers for the Saudi Binladin Group engineering and construction company, responding to lawsuits filed over the 9/11 attacks, say the company is not liable for the terrorist plot because it forced Osama bin Laden to surrender his stake in the company 14 years ago.... Lawyers for the plaintiffs claimed that the Saudi Binladin Group, along with numerous banks, charities and individuals worldwide, provided material support and assistance to Al Qaeda before the attacks. The lawsuits seek billions of dollars in damages.

The court documents identified Bakr bin Laden – Osama bin Laden's brother, the senior member of the bin Laden family and chair of Saudi Binladin Group – as one of Al Qaeda's principal financiers.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/252830

Self Loathing: "...the right secretly admire Islamic terrorists for their brutality..."

Yeah, headless Thai school girls are a real scream. Murdering Korean foreign aid workers fits the CBC soundbite. You're a sick puppy that obviously has a problem telling left from right. Isn't it Taliban Jack that wants to shake the bloody hands of those animals? I hope you're not saying that 'Ol Jack the Knave is a righty after all?

I'm an observant Christian. I take, "Love thy neighbour as thyself" seriously. I'm far from perfect--in fact, a sinner--but I do my best to give of my substance to validate and support others. (Note the multitude, in the thousands, of Christian charities--e.g., Mother Teresa's over 100 houses throughout the world--which validate and help all comers, whether they're Christian or not. NB, Lore Weaver, which Muslim groups do that? Please answer.)

By reason, not faith, I also understand that the basis of the freedoms in the West, as well as of its culture--political, health and welfare, and educational systems--is the Judeo-Christian ethic, which values both justice and the individual, for him or herself. Human life is highly valued. Its wanton destruction--well, not abortion (which, good for them, the Muslims generally abhor)--receives both condemnation and retribution.

To see what a pagan civilization looks like--not at all a pretty picture--watch the excellent HBO series, ROME. The historical consultant for the series readily admits the vast difference between the utterly cruel excesses of pagan Rome before Christianity.

In this context, people like Lore Weaver try my patience. " . . . all religions are equally flawed" is utter poppycock because it’s demonstrably false.

All religions were the foundation of democracy and its fruits? The followers of all religions have a reputation for terrorism and mass murder around the world?

As I type, not all Muslims are terrorists. However, the vast majority of terrorist acts are carried out by Muslims, as a direct result of their religious beliefs.

And LW has the audacity to equate all religions. I’d say, ignorance, stupidity, and magic thinking, writ large. Offensive, to boot.

If I were a Muslim extremist, had been as roundly insulted as Christians and other religionists have been by LW, and knew who this insensitive ignoramus was, (s)he might really regret what (s)he has said. As it is, even if I did know who this person is, probably the worst I'd do--after pointing out his/her errors in fact--would be to pray for such a misguided soul.

The psalmist says, “All my bones are out of joint”. People, like LW, who spout specious lies in the guise of having something worthwhile to say are all too common these days. Moral relativism saps such people of the guts and grey matter to face their own ignorance. (In my day, it was clear to kids that spouting garbage would be forcefully challenged: many of us learned to THINK before we spoke.)

Perhaps LW could try that.

Hey - loathing - again, you need to THINK. Just a bit.

Your list of 'things Muslims might do but don't' is irrelevant. Your 'far to near scale' is bogus. Because something isn't done in front of me but IS done to others - well, that matters. A great deal.

Has a Muslim been to my house to convert me? No. But neither has anyone else.
However, lots of Muslims have preached in public that we infidels in the West had better convert - or die.

They have preached this - as they beheaded 'infidels' on video; they have preached this to their followers; they have preached this to our schools - when they demand special meals, when they insist that the chocolate swirls on an ice cream cone look like 'allah' and are thus an insult. They have preached this when they rioted over political cartoons. They have preached this as they set up suicide bombs, flew planes into buildings, bombed restaurants, buses, trains, hotels..and so on.

You ask 'have they defiled white-women in my neighbourhood'? Again - the invalid focus on 'neighbourhood'. And what's your point about 'white'? Don't other skin colours matter to you?
No- but they have murdered hundreds of women, and men, and children - everywhere. That matters.

Have they engaged in terrorism - in my neighbourhood? No. Are you seriously saying that if something doesn't happen in my neighbourhood that I should be indifferent to the suffering of those in whose neighbourhood it does happen? What kind of psychological pathology do you suffer from?

Converting children to Islam? I have no idea. But it sure happens elsewhere- and to radical fascist Islam. That matters. Not to you. But it certainly does to others who live in that neighbourhood. And here.

As shamrock points out - these fascists are murdering not only infidels, but their own people - It's all about Power. Power over others.
now - that's something that a leftist understands - for the left likes Power Over Everyone.

If I'd read SLM's inane comments--which only display this person's gigantic sense of self-importance and ignorance--before I posted, I'd have included him/her in my comments.

Whoever you are, you need to smarten up: big time.

re moderate islam -

Lawyers for the Saudi Binladin Group engineering and construction company, responding to lawsuits filed over the 9/11 attacks, say the company is not liable for the terrorist plot because it forced Osama bin Laden to surrender his stake in the company 14 years ago.... Lawyers for the plaintiffs claimed that the Saudi Binladin Group, along with numerous banks, charities and individuals worldwide, provided material support and assistance to Al Qaeda before the attacks. The lawsuits seek billions of dollars in damages.

The court documents identified Bakr bin Laden – Osama bin Laden's brother, the senior member of the bin Laden family and chair of Saudi Binladin Group – as one of Al Qaeda's principal financiers.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/252830

Oh by the way, Mr. Loathing. One other problem I have with Muslims, I don't like the way they treat their wimmen.

"and murdering their own people. Say what you want about Christianity, that is not happening."

That's mostly true in the west (if you gloss over the Balkans) although you don't have to thumb too far back in the history books to read about Christians slaughtering each other over religion. My flatmate grew up hearing bombs going off planted by Catholic terrorists.

But what about the jesus freaks in Rwanda? They've just banged out a newly minted genocide and they're as rabidly Christian as they come. Perhaps that's the last genocide Christians will ever inflict on their fellow man I hope so, but that feeling isn't much more than a hope.

The Christians in the West are pretty well behaved nowadays but they're also not very devout anymore either.

Self loather,

"That's funny. I'm a leftist, and I have a nice job, my own home, I pay my taxes. I actually don't worship the state, though all available evidence indicates that public, single-payer healthcare is actually more efficient than private healthcare."

Well, aren't you lucky that you were born in a western state? Aren't you lucky you we were born in Saudi Arabia, or any other Islamic state? For that matter, aren't you lucky you survived Roe vs. Wade?

"Iraq is a disaster area because of Christian leader. The Europeans who slaughtered each other for hundreds of years were Christians. All the while, the Islamic world was actually quite peaceful and, in some ways, culturally more advanced than the west."

"Christian leader." Bush is a universalist, go to youtube, type in Bush and Universalist and see for yourself. Oh, and McVeigh was a self confessed atheist.

"Obviously you are not familiar with the history of Canada and the United States. The reason why white people are here, and not the aboriginals, is that the original white inhabitants killed them all."

I don't know. Who are all those people that call themselves the First Nations then? Hmmm. For that matter, who did they kill to survive? For that matter, have you ever read their own bloody mythology, with regards to race (and not just brown races)?

"Have Muslims been to your house trying to convert you? Have they defiled the white-women in your neighbourhood, or engaged in acts of terrorism? Are they converting your children to Islam?"

Ever heard of the 1.5 million European and American whites kidnapped into slavery by the Barbary Muslims between 1730 and 1815? Didn't think so. But then, I don't think you have any knowledge to gleen any wisdom from in the first place.

At least your moniker was well chosen.

"What about the leftists? If there were no more leftists in the world, how would your life be better?"

The war against idiots would be over and we could lose past mistakes and get on with the future. That's a pretty good answer, no?

"Wow, the troll are out in full force!"

The idiot bell went off in the idiot cave.

Rwanda? That's all you've got? You're not even a troll Jose, you're just an idiot. Not even a useful one.

"But what about the jesus freaks in Rwanda?" - Jose

Just like every moonbat. When you've been exposed - call your adversaries racist, deflect with another bogus lie - all to cover a speedy escape back to the moonbat cave.

Until the next idiot bell.

Pavlov couldn't a thunk it up better.

irwin daisy "...all to cover a speedy escape back to the moonbat cave."

It's like arguing with a badly written comic book from the 30s.

You're not being argued with Jose. You're being insulted. Told off. Berated even. Go back to the moonbat cave and SOAK YOUR HEAD.

Jeez, no wonder the NDP is dead last every election.

Well, perhaps, Stan Lee couldn't a thunk it up better?

It's pointless trying to teach Jose and his ilk anything by using logic. He's a lefty and thinks with his emotions, logic has no place in his world.
He has no cognitive dissonance because holding two logically opposite opinions is normal with him.
His hatred of George Bush is such that he willfully blinds himself to the monsterous acts of Bush's enemies.
He curses George for imaginative or wildly exaggerated acts against gays or minorities or women yet ignores the plain hard fact that Bush's enemies that he sympathises with are rapists and murderers, and completely intolerant of anyone who doesn't believe as they do.
He doesn't see that the silence of the so called moderate muslims is ipso facto assent, or evidence that they in fact don't exist.
Only an emotional child of the nanny state could hold such wildly inconsistent views.
He's too much of a child to recognise that this isn't a game or some college dorm bull session.
It's doubtfull he will ever grow up.
Grown ups look at the facts and form an opinion, Jose has an opinion and blinds himself to any facts that don't support it and uses his imagination to create 'facts' that support his hate driven views.
Or maybe he's just stupid?

A gruesome reminder of the violence being committed by Jihadis in Thailand.

This is coming from an Atheist; please all of you "Islam and Christianity are the same" types tell me where in the New Testament people are commanded to engage in such barbaric acts. These victims are "infidels" who were on the receiving end of the Jihad. They were EXPLICITLY targeted.

WARNING, very graphic images of violence and death. Do not click on the link if you are squeamish:

http://www.zombietime.com/thai_jihad_photos/

Go have a look, Jose. If you think your little brain can stand the truth.
Tell me why the MSM virtually ignores the violence in Southern Thailand?

Yawn. Same old,same old.BTW Jose,SLM,etc. Come on over.The muzzies are gonna love ya,just before they b**tf**k you and cut of your head. Man.I thought the full moon was a week ago.

"I'd also appreciate some substantive evidence for you informing us that 'the right' 'secretly admire Islamic terrorists for their brutality'. Could you provide us, please, with the evidence?
Thanks."

The evidence is Mark Steyn's own writings, which I have read, and obviously, you have not. Or if you have, then your reading comprehension skills are somewhat lacking.

Mark dislikes gays. That much is obvious. Every put down from him involves imasculinating the object of his diresion. If he isn't homophobic, than he plays it up to pander to homphobic people, who make up a significant portion of his customer base. He dislikes abortion, gay rights, what he refers to as "cultural decadence" and publicly funded healthcare. Why does he not like them? Because they eliminate our "civilization will". He has no actual evidence for this. He just assumes it to be true.

Now, if you look at what he dislikes about the west, it is the very things that Islamic fundamentalists dislike about the west: multiculturalism, womens rights, gay rights, cosmopolitanism, etc.

Now, if you read blogs like LGF, you'll observe that when talking about "moonbats", they constantly refer to Muslims chopping off the moonbats heads. Why only the moonbats? Aren't they afraid that Muslims are going to come and kill them too? Wouldn't a Muslim be more likely to kill a manly, masculine right-winged soldier, who values his civilization, than a useful idiot lefitst ally? Of course they would.

But it's not meant to be logical. It's fantasy for right-wingers. The struggle isn't against Islam. It's against people within their own country's who's politics they disagree with: gays, feminists, other minorities, civil libertarians. That's why you love Islamic terrorists: they take care of leftists in their own countries better than you can. You hate the welfare state. You hate multiculturalism. But they deal with it more effectively. I bet you all secretly wish an Islamic terrorist would cut off my head right now. But you know what? None of you will ever have the guts to do that yourself. Ever.

"Oh- and your conclusion about Mark Steyn - that he'd be happy as a convert to Islam - is similar in tone and substance (ie, no substance) and is the same specious nonsense as your other opinions. You see, Steyn values individual responsibility and reason - and both are rejected by Islam. I suggest you read Steyn a bit more. And also, read the Koran."

Please refer me to where the Koran rejects individual rights and explain how that is distinct from Christianity.

"The muzzies are gonna love ya,just before they b**tf**k you and cut of your head."

I love it! Sexual fascination with Muslims, and head chopping all in one blow!

I love this site. I am curious, what sort of careers do you people haveÉ Are you professionally employedÉ Corporate lawyersÉ JournalistsÉ It would be interesting to do a study of what kind of people hold the beliefs you do. It is kind of a therapy group for angry losers with no where to go... then again, who am I to talk, rightÉ

Perhaps they've already done the former...

The careers thread was done earlier in the year. I think maybe one person admitted to being a journo; why you hold it up as something of esteem is beyond me, but as you say, who are you to talk.

No, SLM, you stupid zit, the majority of readers here are engineers - www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006355.html - though most of us don't comment most of the time because we come here for the quality information, not to refute parasites like you, and besides, we've got work to do, unlike angry losers like you.

engineers: 61
computer programmers/consultants/systems analysts: 47
management: 46
military: 36
educators: 31
scientists: 28
small business: 28
technicians/technologists: 27
accountants/bookkeepers/economists/taxation/insurance: 24
construction/electricians/plumbers/carpenters/contractors: 23
financiers/brokers/bankers: 21
farmer/rancher/cowboy/agriculture/veterinary: 19
stay-at-home parents: 18
consultants: 18
sales: 16
pilots/air traffic control: 15
lawyers/legal assistants/advocates: 14
doctors/nurses/healthcare: 14
pastors/priests/missionaries/social workers/psychologists/counselors: 13
civil servants: 12
artists/musicians/photographers: 12
manufacturing/machinists: 10
writers/journalists/reporters: 10
police/corrections/security/investigation: 8
students: 8
truckers/railroad workers: 8
statisticians/actuaries/data analysts/librarians: 8
architects/draftsmen/urban planners: 8
radio/television/telecom: 7
mechanics/heavy equipment operators: 6
oil workers: 6
real estate: 4
forestry: 3
purchasing/logistics/warehousing: 3
secretary/administrative assistant:3
quality assurance: 2
map maker/surveyor: 2
human resources: 2
other: 12

We run the world, honey.

Sucks when you plant both your feet in your face at the same time, doesn't it sweetie-pie?

It's clear that SLM is an idiot. His/her meanderings, full of vacuous assertions and fractured logic, as well as plain lies (the analysis of Mark Steyn and conservatives, like me, is ludicrous)--not to mention the spelling errors--would merit a mark of F. (Try emasculating, derision, moonbats' heads, countries, and whose. But you still get F.)

That a person with such delusions would proudly strut his/her stuff also displays a serious lack of self-analysis, proportion, and self-respect: this person constantly makes a fool of him/herself in front of all of us, all the while imagining that he/she has something worthwhile to say.

Clearly, this self-proclaimed emperor/empress has no clothes. Pathetic.

P.S. I do not love Islamic terrorists. (But I do love Mark Steyn.)

"What's this alliance between "left leaning groups" and fundamentalist Islam"

Read your history. There has always been loose knit alliances between terrorist organizations and the 'left'.

Japanese Red Army, Shining Path, Baader Mienhoff, FARC in Colombia, the IRA in Ireland, Italian factions and Islamists have shared funding, training, weapons, communications and sometimes,ideologies over the last 40 years.

And fellow travelers of the left (hint: Jose and DThomas) completely buy the whinning and bleating of victimhood and oppression. The truth is that they are comprised of immoral thugs, occasionally driven by ideology, but mostly by power and money.

The moral equivelency drawn by the left is not just repugnant and reprehensible - it's dangerous

You don't understand Mark Steyn, at least not if you make the statement that...
"Mark dislikes gays. That much is obvious."

No, don't bother answering.

You just don't get what his writing is about.

In fact, I honestly believe your stringing a line of bull when you write:
"The evidence is Mark Steyn's own writings, which I have read,...". What, you read his stuff for 60 seconds, if that?

Go b.s. somewhere else.

quuran inconsistant?

so is the bible folks !!

at least muslims dont have *umpteen versions* of their holy book!!!

de bybull ish da wordofgawd.

uhuh. ummm, which version dear fundamentalist?

Hey, quick, SLMC, find a quote from Steyn's writings, chop it up so that it is taken completely out of context, and throw it up here at SDA.

Come on, high school!

"Clearly, this self-proclaimed emperor/empress has no clothes."

I am an Emperor? I didn't realize. And I'm naked?

"There has always been loose knit alliances between terrorist organizations and the 'left'."

HAHAHAHA!!! "loose knit". As in, so loosely knit, that you have no proof. Genius, pure genius.

Tell me, can anyone explain how western civilization will fall? What kind of society will replace it? Will we all have to become Muslims?

Will you people stop feeding the trolls. They don't learn and never will. They do know better already.

Rwanda? That's all you've got? You're not "

?

'all'?

thats 'all'??????

800,000 dead africans and you brush it off with an 'thats all'????

spin spin spin ......

loathing - you are being illogical. I asked you to provide evidence that the 'right' "secretly admires Islamic terrorists for their brutality".

Your answer was empty. Absolutely empty.

You stated that Mark Steyn 'dislikes gays'. And that a 'significant portion of his customer base is homophobic'.
Now - you are, yet again, stating something without any evidence.
Provide proof that a 'significant portion of his customer base is homophobic'.
And then - what does this have to do with any 'admiration for Islamic terrorist's brutality???

Then, you stated that he was against abortion. So? What does that have to do with an 'admiration for Islamic terrorist's brutality'???

And against publicy funded health care. So? What does that have to do with an 'admiration for Islamic terrorists' brutality'? Sheesh.

Then - you move into the serious logical error of false analogy, where you say that since Steyn is against multiculturalism, women's rights, gay rights and cosmopolitanism' (you need proof of all of this - and your slipping in these terms without definition of exactly what Steyn critiques in any of these - means that your use of them is INVALID)...
Your error is to say that because Steyn is against these things (prove it - and define your terms first)..and the Islamic fascists are also against these things - THEN- Steyn=Islamic fascist.

That's a basic error in logic. Called a false analogy. Check it out.

AND - what does this have to do with providing proof that Steyn 'secretly admires Islamic terrorists for their brutality'? Well???

Please provide proof that an Islamic fascist would prefer to behead a 'manly rightist soldier' than a 'leftist ally'. Just because you state this as your opinion - isn't proof. It's meaningless.

Now wait - now you are saying that 'you love Islamists because they take care of leftists better than you can'. Hey - doesn't this contradict your previous paragraph where you said that the terrorist would prefer to behead a rightist rather than a leftist? Are you being illogical yet again?

Do you seriously think that it takes GUTS to behehad someone? Are you an idiot? (answer - yes) Beheading someone with whom you disagree or 'just because' isn't an act of bravery. It's an act of supreme cowardice. Don't you understand that? You are the one who esteems the 'brutality of Islamic terrorism'. You think it takes GUTS to behead someone. You admire terrorists for that. But it's an act of cowardice.

Islam is a communal ideology, rejecting reason and individual freedom and insisting on faith and revelation. I suggest you read the famous chapter on The Cow- which also shows how Islam is really a sociopolitical ideology, with its focus on the lack of individual identity, the ultimate source of truth as revealed from god, the authoritarianism of this ultimate source, the political structure - the militant ferocity of 'slay them'. And also the one on Women - and the insistence on strict and obedient homogeneity of behaviour and belief.

As for Christianity - you must have heard of Abelard and his 'dubitando' (I doubt)- with its focus on his individual right to analyze and dissent. And the famous battle of Protestantism, which was actually a political battle to take back the original Right-To-Think from the church - a right that was in Christianity from the beginning (with the Fall from Purity - a fall that enabled individual consciousness). Certainly the Christian church - the church, not the religion - tried to reject individual freedom in the 4th c ad, with the fight between Arianism and Athanasianism. But although the church won- the battle was renewed and freedom of thought won..beginning in the 11th c.

The focus on reason, on individual consciousness and cognition, is not found in Islam.

And by the way - the majority of people on this site are professionals - everything from computer scientists, engineers, biologists, doctors, lawyers and so on. Therefore, your attempt to denigrate people here - is yet another empty trail.

Jose, Self-Loathing, Lore Weaver...

"Ya, because other religions don't do this at all? I'm not giving a pass to Islam, I'm saying all religions are equally flawed." (Lore weaver, 5:31PM). Really???

You guys can't win the argument. The foundation of your premise is false. Surely you can see that, can you not?

Here's a Mark Steyn quote for y'all that ought to make it clear:
"For those of us who aren't professors of Islamic studies, the obvious course is to step back and try to work from first principles: What's happening? Who's doing it? The five-thousand-guys-named-Mo routine meets the 'reasonable man' test: it's the first thing an averagely well-informed person who's not a multiculti apologist notices - here's the evening news and here comes another Mohammed."

Come ahhhn... quit with that 'equivalence' shtick with Islam, you know, trying to conflate the modern manifestation of Islam with, well, ANY or EVERY other religion on Earth. You're opening yourselves up to a lot of ridicule... but at least you've earned it.

I bet you all secretly wish an Islamic terrorist would cut off my head right now. But you know what? None of you will ever have the guts to do that yourself. Ever.

Wow. Nothing like a little melodrama when reason fails.

Cut off your head, no. Make a psych appointment for you, yes.

All leftist thought is based on half truths, lies and innuendo and a massive dollop of self loathing as so aptly demonstrated by our trolls tonite..

If you pay taxes, have a nice house and follow the 'dream', my friend, you are not a leftist, no matter how many Ché t-shirts you have in your closet.

If you are so inclined, i suggest you read up on the reformation as a start, in order to learn why the Christian west does not have the same problems as unreformed Islam..

I also have to laugh when i hear how enlightened Muslim civilization was ..seven centuries ago...
sorry, you don't get a mulligan on this one, the world has moved on, and you would be hard pressed to find me an Islamist society today that could direct you how to use a toilet, let alone put a man on the moon..

Before i forget...how can i not mention (as a direct link between the left and the islamo-fascists..) this years infamous Cairo conference, and the attendance of such luminaries as Jeff Clark and the Toronto Peace Coalition..

What, you say? Lefties, allied with head chopping, women stoning, Jew baiters?

..but as they say, there you have it..all shite eventually finds the sewer..

From the time I attended a Christian church as a child, I was always taught to question because without asking questions you cannot learn.

I've never actuallly counted, but every Sunday we pray for peace of the soul and peace for the earth at least two dozen times.

If you enumerate all the best nations in the world, one where its people enjoy individual freedoms and understand that responsibility is part of the deal, the vast majority would be Judaeo/Christian.

Peace on earth. Good will toward men.

Which side did Arab nations fight for in WWI and WWII?

Presently there are 2 nations that aid in producing the most Terrorists and Opium and one of them is Afghanistan which is a 99% Muslim populated Country , the other -Pakistan- has exported Jihadists to Canada and the U.K. .

Christians didn't exists prior to Christ's
time on Earth so please stop linking 'The Bible'
to the New Testament because i challenge any Muslim to to cite just one verse or order from Jesus to kill civilians on his behalf if they don't accept his teachings .
Mohummad created a retro-active faith that hijacked many tenets from the Jews and Christians
that he pawned off as his own that Allah handed down to him only , he is cited in the Quran as giving the 'People of the book' ( jews and Christians) 3 choices for making Peace with islam , 1. accept Muhammad as the real prophet from God and only Allah as the true God for all and Submission (Islam) , 2. keep your faith but pay a tax while in a Caliphate State , 3. Be smited on the neck and killed as a 'Enemy' of Allah and ergo 'At war' and not a 'Innocent Civilian' given protection within Islam.

Now....please prove to me that those 3 conditions don't exists in the Quran and that Muhammad didn't take part in about 60 wars and killed many civilians including about 700 jewish villagers that he tricked into a Peace Agreement
while he built up his Army to raid the town and slaughter them all.

djinbc is right.

If they do comprehend, at a deeper level, what's going on in world affairs at this point in time, but deny it, it sure would indicate there's something a little weird about how their minds work (watch 'em copy-and-paste that one).

If they don't fully understand current events, and what they mean for humanity (yeah, sure, I know, Bushitler-Cheney-Halliburton... zzzzz), then they must be pretty thick.

Either way, not much point in trying to reason with them. Hard to ignore them, sometimes.

Like that crappy Rwanda postulate somebody typed earlier; just too hard to ignore, I'm afraid. I remember watching the news each night in 1994. I recall hearing Romeo Dallaire's cries for help from the U.N. before the killing started, and as the hacking was being carried out. It made me sick to watch as the world stood by and did boom-all for those 800,000 human beings. But I knew, no question, that ANY military force would have been met with a bunch of peevish carping from the left... of which I was a long-standing member.

Rwanda was the catalyst that started moving me from the Left to the Right politically. So cut out the Rwanda argument.

Look at all these experts on Islam. I'll bet you've all read it in the original Arabic too!

Let me put a question more directly: what is Islam's goal, vis-a-vis western civilization? Are they going to convert us all to Islam? If so, how will they accomplish this? What institutions or organizations will undertake this? How will they overcome the military of the west? How will they subvert democracy, and the hundreds of years of traditions in Europe (where they are 5% of the population) and North America - where they are less?

Are all Muslims terrorists? Do they all want Jihad? Do none of them want democracy?

Or are they all out to kill us and rape our women?

Afghanistan has been growing poppies for centuries.

Pakistan's involvement in the Taliban goes back to the Iranian hostage crisis.

Then US president Jimmy Carter contacted a small group within Paskistan's ISI, their internal security force, and recruited what is now know as the mujahadeen to fight communists in Afghanistan.

One of the fighters in Afghanistan was named Osama bin Laden.

So, when people say the US created Al Quaeda, they're right.

When the Afghan campaign was over, the fighters were given save haven in Kosovo, which led to the Balkan Wars.

As you may recall, then president Clinton was so grateful to the mujahadeen proxy army than he bombed Serbia at the same time US planes were dropping supplies to the jihadists.

Just two months ago (or was it one month ago) now US president George Bush visited Kosovo and promised the country its own government.

Not that the Kosovars, who had been living there for hundreds of years longer than the mujahadeen, had a burning desire for independence, mind you.

But that's just the kind of guys the US are.

Don't get me wrong.

Iraq was all about putting the heat on Iran, surrounding it with budding democracies (look on a map).

But, what a terrible mess there is to unravel in the meantime.

"Are all Muslims terrorists? Do they all want Jihad? Do none of them want democracy?" (SLMC, 11:47PM)

No.
No.
A great many do.

What the hell do you think Iraq's about?
Big oil, as in enriching Exxon, Conoco-Phillips, etc...? Or could it be about who DOESN'T control Iraq's oil (yep, Saddam Hussein... got it in one).

You don't believe it? Tough darts. See my comments about Rwanda above. The 'Iraq war for big oil' bit is one hackneyed argument. You can't have it both ways, you know, "Muslims want democracy" and "U.S. imperialists are responsible for up to 2 million Iraqi deaths... oops, that was the blockade from '91 to March '03... 600,000 Iraqi deaths up to March 2006" (must be 1 million by now, eh?).

Muslim fundamentalists, as opposed to plain old ordinary run-of-the-mill mental cases, are responsible for, oh, 80% of the killing in Iraq, and Baathists yearning for the good ol' days are responsible for the remainder.

Or do you think if Al Queda stopped the murder this very minute, those God-fearing Christian American soldiers would feel compelled to pick up the slack, and start an Iraqi bloodbath of their own?

Do you see just how tortured your argument gets?

The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist

Here is one European article that does link the Left with enabling Muslim, describes the raping of western women and other Muslim violence the against their hosts.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2278

@The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist at September 4, 2007 11:47 PM: "Let me put a question more directly: what is Islam's goal, vis-a-vis western civilization?"

Ok kool aid drinker, just 2 minor facts:

From http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5084314.html

'Muslim charity trial may shed new light on terror aid'

"One of the documents is a memo about the goals for the U.S. organization of the U.S. faction of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members included some of the Holy Land leaders now on trial."

"The memo's writer, Mohamed Akram, wrote that members of the Brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within."

Islam is Not a Religion of Pacifists
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, 1942

"Islam’s jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression, and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Islamic] conquerors, however, aims at promoting lust and animal pleasures. They care not if whole countries are wiped out and many families left homeless. But those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God’s law]. ..."

"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does that mean that Muslim should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill the [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!"

@ TSLM: "Are they going to convert us all to Islam? If so, how will they accomplish this?"

No, you convert, submit, pay jiyza, or they intend to kill you, thats all.

Oh, and take a look at Israel's good neighbors. Would you like that bunch Hamas, Hezbollah over here? Give it some time, they are working on that real hard, especially in Windsor. A few missiles any one?

@ TSLM: "What institutions or organizations will undertake this?"

Islam will with the help of PC / dhimmis like you.

@ TSLM: "How will they overcome the military of the west?"

They won't. The west has taken a likng to dhimmitude and surrender. You lefties are the bunch loathing the miliary anyway. The military and police will be too busy chasing self exploding carbon life forms anyway. You know, War at home.

Oh, and remember all that Political Correctness? (PC). Infiltration (immigration) will continue until we 'westerners' are washed out (population explosion) if we aren't careful and power will shift Islam's way, given time.

@ TSLM: "How will they subvert democracy, and the hundreds of years of traditions in Europe (where they are 5% of the population) and North America - where they are less?"

Because the 5% won't stay at 5%. Familiar with trends & math?, like birth rates etc?. Political power in numbers and all that stuff?

The Netherlands & others are practically begging to turn back time because of the stranglehold Muslims have on their country. Perhaps you should read more or turn on the TV and do some honest evaluation.

And so, remember Khomeini: "Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless"

Does that help a bit, witless?

By the way, you claim to have read Mark Steyn. So, are the demographics he refers to regarding Western Europe correct?

5%? And by 2050 it will be, what?

Some time ago I read a rebuttal to Steyn's claim that Malmo, Sweden was 40% Muslim. The person doing said rebutting stated that he had lived in Malmo up until recently, and there is NO WAY that Malmo's Muslim population was any larger than 25%.

Huh? Only 25%? Well, do they believe in Western democratic values, property rights, and the rule of law? Or does a narrow minority of Malmo Muslims take on the patina of a certain other narrow minority I'm sure you're familiar with (think Berlin, 1933). That'll be the group with the clubs and Molotov cocktails, and eventually all the power in their communities.

Most residents of Hamburg weren't Nazis. But 40,000 people died in Hamburg in a single night anyway.

"Does that help a bit, witless?"

Yes, that helps.

Let me see if I understand, the quotes of a couple of Muslim groups that a tiny fraction of the Islamic community follows, are going to take over Windsor and lob missiles at us.

There will be no integration, no intermarriage, and no cultural assimilation because of our weakness. Are you sure that this will be the case? You know, having sex and getting drunk is way more fun than sitting in a mosque.

Also, the only solution you proposed was to stop immigration. Do you have any other solutions? How do you feel about ethnic cleansing? Should we kill the Muslims that are already here?

Please advise.

"Or do you think if Al Queda stopped the murder this very minute, those God-fearing Christian American soldiers would feel compelled to pick up the slack, and start an Iraqi bloodbath of their own?

Do you see just how tortured your argument gets?"

Of course the Iraq War has nothing to do with oil. If Iraq's major export was cabbages, the US would have still invaded.

Self-Loathing, Hitler was a tiny fraction of the community...and then what?

Yes, stop immigration, start education and proper assimilation. Otherwise go back to the sh*tholes they came from, obviously better you know.

Only Islamists want ethnic cleansing (especially of the Joozz) and all that killing, in case you haven't read up on it.

This is all way over your head obviously.

Sounder out.

If cabbages were fetching $70 a bushel, and were controlled by a despotic prick, with a proclivity to invade his neighbours, nestled in amongst the most neurotic bunch of dictators sitting on top of the biggest cabbage patches in the world, you bet they would have.

Do you think Canada's next? Using your logic, we will be.

And don't answer with "Northwest Passage".

"Do you think Canada's next? Using your logic, we will be."

Why would we need to? They're getting it for cheap.

Remember, the US getting access to oil isn't a big deal. But controling the supply gives them significant clout over China, Russia and Europe.

But wait, it's all about democracy and the weapons of mass destruction.

Yep, sure are robbing Canada of its oil, those nasty Yanks.

That's why Alberta's swimming in cash.

"Self-Loathing, Hitler was a tiny fraction of the community...and then what?"

Actually, Hitler was the extreme end of a fairly right-wing faction in Germany. He was a good orator, but tactically less clever. His rise to power was the result of a complex list of economic and political causes, which are not paralled in the present day. Your analogy is to Hitler is incorrect.

"Yes, stop immigration, start education and proper assimilation. Otherwise go back to the sh*tholes they came from, obviously better you know."

And how do we assimilate? Should we ban the practicing of Islam? Should we ban headscarves?

"Only Islamists want ethnic cleansing (especially of the Joozz) and all that killing, in case you haven't read up on it."

I wouldn't worry too much about that. Israel is the only nuclear power in the middle east. They have the uncritical support of the US. Some of their nuclear weapons are actually in Turkey, which means if the Iranians were to attack them, then they would be attacking a NATO country. Israel cannot be defeated militarily.

"This is all way over your head obviously."
I'm trying to follow you, but your arguments are simplistic, misinformed, and generally seem to consist of angry rhetoric and name calling. You are welcome to keep trying if you like, but perhaps you may want to familiarize yourself with some actual history so you can better qualify yourself on the opinions you state.

You're getting harpooned right, left, and centre.

It's because of your jaded old belief system in general, and your anti-Americanism in particular.

You can't win, and it's because of that basic belief system. Like that 'They're getting it (oil) for cheap" bit.

Man, that's nuts.

"Yep, sure are robbing Canada of its oil, those nasty Yanks.

That's why Alberta's swimming in cash."

For better historical context on the War in Iraq, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the work of George Kennan, one of the early architects of post-WW2 policy for the US. Kennan, and others, referred to the Middle East as one of the great material prizes in history. It is the largest petroleum deposit in the world (and it is easier to refine than in Alberta). It has been recognized that oil would be a "tool for blackmail", if in the hands of others. That is one of the major reasons that the US went into Iraq.

There has been some speculation, in light of the recent Sunday Times article, that another motive for the attack on Iraq was to provide a secure air corridor for an attack on Iran. With Afghanistan and Iraq under US control, they can launch air strikes with impunity. Personally, I don't think the Americans are that insane. Their military is too overstretched for that kind of action. The Israelis could do it, but it would lead to heavy reprisals from Hezbollah, which I don't think they woud want.

"It's because of your jaded old belief system in general, and your anti-Americanism in particular."

What belief system? I haven't articulated a belief. I have expressed opinions, which one can accept or reject. I don't subscribe to the materialist view of history, or to the Islamo-demographic narrative of the right.

The article here:

http://3w.worldpress.org/Mideast/663.cfm

is about a report done in 2002 by arabs about arab society. It is scathing in its assessment and for me, one point sticks out more than all of the others:

"...the report found that the total number of books translated into Arabic yearly is no more than 330, or one-fifth of those translated in a small country like Greece.

Indeed, the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year."

Only 330 books per year. I bet that more books are translated into latin - a supposedly dead language - every year than that.

If I was a very rich man intent on improving the welfare of as many people as possible - Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros (he has money and says he wants to do good...) come to mind - I would start up a translation project to up that number by tenfold or more and post the translations on the internet. They books of all types, novels (Crime and Punishment), economics (anything by Milton Friedman) , history (Stephen Ambrose does good work) etc. as they all liberate the mind in one way or another.

Knowledge is power and currently those who are literate only in Arabic are as powerless as newborn babies...

Hell, maybe the CIA could do the translating - it would probably be more useful than a lot of the billions they spend on other things.

Perhaps Kate, you could get this blog translated into arabic - imagine how the Islamo-fascists would respond to that?

To The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist, a word of advice: Give it up. You can't win this argument, for the simple reason that SDA loyalists are always right about everything. They know more than you do about every issue, and hold the solutions to every pressing problem facing Western society. That these solutions are routinely ignored not only by the general public but also by the Conservative Party leadership is readily explainable by the fact that the country's entire mainstream media industry, judiciary, and public education systems are controlled by liberal elites who, in collusion with the queer, feminist, and ethnic lobbies, have successfully brainwashed the public with their progressive leftist ideologies. It's really quite obvious and self-evident, once you decide to open your eyes to the Truth.

Yes, remember that, Self-Loathing Multiculturalist: small dead minds are always right about everything...because they say they are. ROTFLMAO

But how is that possible, A? SDA loyalists being right all the time, I mean. I'm just a poor deluded right-winger, motivated by homophobia, racism and a latent fascination with the sexual prowess of non-white races and all, right? How did TSLM get so far inside my head like that? Here I was, tuning into the SDA echo-chamber to have my thoughts thunk for me, when the scales were ripped from my eyes with his insightful insights! I feel...I feel so used! Oh god, I can't believe I'm crying!

"If you enumerate all the best nations in the world, one where its people enjoy individual freedoms and understand that responsibility is part of the deal, the vast majority would be Judaeo/Christian."

Secular actually and trending towards no religion fast. That west has seen increasing levels of personal freedom and liberty while simultaneously turning its back on religion. What does that tell you?

maybe these trolls should go tell these alqaida we want to live in peace wonder how many will come back headless

Jose -"Secular actually and trending towards no religion fast. That west has seen increasing levels of personal freedom and liberty while simultaneously turning its back on religion. What does that tell you?"

That the west's decline is sure to follow.

A "You can't win this argument, for the simple reason that SDA loyalists are always right about everything"

I'm tempted to believe that this is some kind of parody. That would be the charitable interpretation. But then again there really are people who comment who are that thick so who nows.

"You spit on freedom because you've always had it."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Avi Lewis

Some people just need to feel important. Living in the best societies on earth, societies (founded on Judeo-Christian principles) that everyone else wants to immigrate to, they just have to trash those societies in order to feel important. "Must rebel, maaaan." It's juvenile. Take your trendy radicalism that would melt in terror at the sight of real revolutionaries (those true tyrants who would execute you without a second thought if you don't adhere to their utopian creed), and go feel important in Cuba, Venezuala, any Middle Eastern country, Russia, Zimbabwe, war-lord led African countries, China, etc. Go rebel against the powers that be in those places, maaaan. You might find out just exactly how much you love living in a Judeo-Christian-founded society.

"... there really are people who comment who are that thick so who nows."

Who "nows" indeed, thick-boy.

Jose: "Secular actually and trending towards no religion fast. That west has seen increasing levels of personal freedom and liberty while simultaneously turning its back on religion. What does that tell you?"

It tells me that we've used up just about all the Judeo-Christian (anti-pagan) moral capital in the bank that's been floating our civilization for centuries.

As we become more secular, our society's becoming more and more uncouth and pagan. Go to any public school or walk down the filthy, chaotic streets of our cities, now full of aimless, self-mutilated young people.

More freedom and liberty? No way. Try license and PC tyranny: we're being regulated to death--first our minds and souls. Watch ROME: worse is surely to come.

Wake up, Jose and smell the rot.

"I wouldn’t be alone in thinking each time an artist or commentator insults Christians: friend, if you’re so brave, say that about Islam.

Show us your chocolate Mohammeds. Show us your Korans dipped in urine.

Where is the singer who will rip up a Koran as Marilyn Manson ripped up a Bible? Or will on television tear up a picture of Islam’s most honoured preacher as Sinead O’Connor shredded one of the great Pope John Paul II?

It’s not as if Islam doesn’t threaten our artists more than does Christianity.

See only the murder of film director Theo van Gogh or the fatwa on writer Salman Rushdie or the stabbing of Rushdie’s translator. Or see those deadly riots against the Mohammed cartoons.

So when I see a Western artist mock Christ, I see an artist advertising not his courage but his cowardice – by not daring to mock what would threaten him more . . .

that more people now know there is a double standard here illustrated perfectly by the Melbourne International Comedy Festival, which banned acts that told jokes against Muslims but promoted ones that lampooned Christians.

It’s this blatant double standard that may finally have shamed some of the usual jeerers into showing Christianity a little respect.

And perhaps – just perhaps – more of us might be wakening to a truth we too long took for granted. It’s no accident that we feel safer insulting Christians than trashing almost anyone else.

This is a religion that’s always preached tolerance, reason and non-violence, even if too many of its followers have seemed deaf.

It’s also urged us to leave the judgment of others to God (a message I ignore for professional reasons). We are the beneficiaries of that preaching, even those of us who aren’t Christians.

We live in a society, founded on Christian principles, that guards our right to speak, and even to abuse things we should praise.

We can now vilify Jesus and damn priests, and risk nothing but hard looks from a soft bishop . . .

We dare all that because we do not actually fear what we condemn. We know Christians are taught not to punch our smarmy face, and we even count on it. Indeed, it is the very faith we mock that has made us so safe.

This is one reason why I, an agnostic, will today do what I do every Easter, and play Bach’s divine St Matthew Passion while I sit for a while and give thanks.

I will be thanking again not only a preacher of astonishing moral clarity and courage, but one who inspired a faith that has brought us unparalleled gifts – including the freedom to create even a chocolate Jesus in this most holy of weeks."

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_kinder_to_our_christians/

Sorry, long quote, but it says so much.

Jose, you want to know where we are going?

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006974.html

SDA'ers are always right... Mmm hmm. 'Cause we know shite from clay. Jose meanwhile is having a bath in it and wondering what that nasssty smell is.

Your bridge is lonely, Jose.

TSLM:

Wherever did you get the notion that Hitler ran a far-right party?

Does the name of the party, the National Socialists, give you a clue where these control freaks stand on the political spectrum?

The major difference between marxism and National Socialism is the marxists that the state should control means of economic production.

Both are into social control of their populace, a trademark of left-wing regimes everywhere.

Thank God I was raised in Alberta, where the education system actually shows where parties sit on the policial spectrum and not in the People's Republic of Saskatchewan, whose death throes we are thankfully witnessing.

Fellow travellers, don't let TSML ever get away with this lie that ‘Hitler is a right-winger' again.

If Hitler is to the right of TSML, then TSML has defined himself as a marxist.

Now you know what you're dealing with.

Secular actually and trending towards no religion fast. That west has seen increasing levels of personal freedom and liberty while simultaneously turning its back on religion.

Take a look around at Christ mas time. See all those Christ mas trees?

Hosea 14:8 Ephraim shall say, What have I to do any more with idols? I have heard him, and observed him: I am like a green fir tree. From me is thy fruit found.

Btw, Christianity is not a religion, but a reality. The blessings of Christian countries are self-evident.

"Wherever did you get the notion that Hitler ran a far-right party?"

Because he despised socialism and the working class.

"Thank God I was raised in Alberta, where the education system actually shows where parties sit on the policial spectrum"

Your post does not present the Alberta system in a favourable light.

"Fellow travellers, don't let TSML ever get away with this lie that ‘Hitler is a right-winger' again."

Obviously you know very little about Fascism, Communism, their differences and their similarities.

Here's a general question to left wingers who are reading this blog:

Do you ever find it kind of addictive to argue with people on SDA (or other right-wing blogs) who are clearly insane? I'm finding it kind of a hard habit to kick.

I was hoping that the comments about the sexual fascination with non-whites and their secret admiration for head-chopping would strike some kind of a raw nerve, which would result in a registration policy being enacted, a la LGF. Sadly, nothing of the sort has happened.

Does any one else have the same thing? Jose?

I thought that comment about the sexual prowess of non-white males was out of order personaly.

I'm a debate junkie period, I don't get off on pissing people normaly. Although I do get mildly amused by reactionaries throwing a fit because you've skewered them.

"Wherever did you get the notion that Hitler ran a far-right party?"

Because he despised socialism and the working class.

There are several different kinds of socialism.

"Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a content-less deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property DEJURE. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership DE FACTO.

THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, by Leonard Peikoff

"I'm with Ghandi on this one, I like your Christ. I don't like your christians they are so unlike your Christ. Most Christians don't act anything like the Bible says they should in my opinion. They cherry pick what they want out of that book and ignore the rest." by Jose

Jose, I think you're doing a little cherry pickin' yourself there. I doubt very much you have any insight into the Bible. We are all sinners; the difference between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians at least acknowledge they are sinning, whilst non-Christians haven't a clue that they are sinning.

The left sticks up for Islam is the real problem; they fail to acknowledge that there is a problem with Islam and that Muslims in western countries follow Islam. Literally billions of dollars have been spent since 9/ll in security alone because of nutjob Islamic extremists, a.k.a. Muslims Gone Wild, and their antics. Unfortunately, since one can't tell a so-called moderate Muslim from an extremist Muslim, perhaps sending them all packing will be our only alternative, and when the crap starts hitting the fan in our neighborhoods, we will all be wondering what all the fuss was about the in the WW's when the Japanese were all rounded up.

WHY WE ARE SOCIALISTS
by Joseph Goebbels

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/haken32.htm

Excerpt;

The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to , which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.

How come we never read or hear the term Christianophobic or Jesusophobic or Christophobic? There certainly seems to be a lot of people who are just this - fear Christians and their beliefs because Christian beliefs may infringe on their own lack of beliefs.

I am all for giving groups the benefit of the doubt. That does not mean that people should be blinded by their idealism. Look at all the countries of the world that are having problems with Islamist aggression. It is a long list. It includes all forms of governments from democracies to communists to dictatorships. The violence is present in these nations regardless the race - African, Asian, Caucasian. Both in developed nations and undeveloped nations. In countries they immigrate to as well as their home nations. Muslims are common denominator.

I have no problem with debate and discussion. Progressives can continue to argue that all religions are the same and Islam is a religion of peace but the facts do not support this theory. One or two incidences by Muslims could have been explained as coincidence but the number of conflicts now indicates a clear pattern of unsociable behaviors. For Canadians to think they will be the exception is not logical.

"I thought that comment about the sexual prowess of non-white males was out of order personaly."

The comment was not about non-whites, but how non-whites are perceived by whites. In fact, there are actually people who've studied the history of sexual relations between races, and how people's conceptions of other races play out.

I'm hardly breaking controversial, new ground there.

" sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to , which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive."

And East Germany called itself the "Germany Democratic Republic". I guess that means that Democracy is an evil system then.

The only people you've ever skewered were in your wet dreams, Jose.

their secret admiration

TSLM, this is second time in this thread that you have mentioned this secret admiration.

If it is a fact, you'll have no trouble whatsoever providing the evidence. If it's just your opinion, a figment of your overwrought imagination, say so. You can not present opinion as fact. They are not the same thing.

One more thing - if this secret admiration does in fact exist, you wouldn't know about it since it is, well, secret.

ya'all best sit down and accept Christ. if you wish to follow big mo then get youself a weapon and continue the killing.

"It’s not as if Islam doesn’t threaten our artists more than does Christianity."

Mohammad began doing that after taking over Mecca. There were two popular poets who poked fun at him. As a result, old 'peaceful' Mo put out a hit on each of them.

Murdering artists that don't tow the party line. Another thing leftists hold in common with Islam.

The moonbats have been devastated, again. Though, of course, they don't have the brain capacity to realize it.

I'm sure many borderline leftoids have tipped back to rational thought after reading the posts of the Self Loather, Jose, A, and the rest of the pond life.

"The moonbats have been devastated, again."

Presenting an argument that consists of nothing but infantile insults and declaring yourself the winner of an argument doesn't rate as devastation in my books. It's amusingly pathetic at best.

anybody thinks hitler did not harbour a version and elements of socialism in his aryan idyl fantasy, please explain the term 'national SOCIALism' for me tq.

he detested personally and ideologically the soviet variant. but socialist it was, envisioning a primarily agrarian, racially pure and pretty much self sufficient german nation and people.

read some history books people and puleese stop jamming up the blogoshere with your opinion pieces and speculation.

"If it is a fact, you'll have no trouble whatsoever providing the evidence. If it's just your opinion, a figment of your overwrought imagination, say so. You can not present opinion as fact. They are not the same thing."

I've explained the psychological basis for this several times in this blog. If you are too lazy to do a search for my posts, that is not my problem.

That my opinion was just that, an opinion, seemed fairly self-evident by the nature of my explanation. Either you didn't read it, or you read it but didn't understand it. Or, you did read it, and it is true, and your only reaction is to argue about meaningless semantics.

Murdering artists that don't tow the party line. Another thing leftists hold in common with Islam."

well that puts the right wing death squads of central america 'right' in the same boat then doesnt it mr daisy.

right wing despots the world over throughout modern history have veritable supertankers full of the blood of the artisans, poets, and writers they have murdered.

"he detested personally and ideologically the soviet variant. but socialist it was, envisioning a primarily agrarian, racially pure and pretty much self sufficient german nation and people.È

No, Hitler was not a Socialist. As I explained before, he despised the working class, and specifically wanted an authoritarian elite to run society. Private enterprise did perfectly well under Hitler, including American companies,such as IBM and Ford.

As I said before, East Germany called itself the German Democratic Republic. By your logic, then, democracy involves having a massive state security apparatus that spies on all its citizens.

"Presenting an argument that consists of nothing but infantile insults and declaring yourself the winner of an argument doesn't rate as devastation in my books. It's amusingly pathetic at best."

There are two types of people that do this: raving Stalinists and LGFers.

There is little difference between communism and fascism save the excuses that either variant of tyranny uses to justify the murders committed in their name. Each properly belongs on the left side of the political spectrum, under the heading of Statism, and you can argue all you want as to whether Stalin was left or right of Hitler, if you think that the number of deaths caused by each is a valid criteria to do so. In no respect does tacking the word 'Democratic' somewhere in the name of a statist country either make its government democratic or diminish the nature of democracy by association.

SLM:

National SOCIALIST Party.

Which part don't you understand?

Nazism (a shortened version of National Socialist Party) is every bit a left-wing ideology as marxism, no matter how ignorant you are of the fact and no matter how loud you shout.

There is no escaping the truth and the truth is that Adolf Hitler and his minions were SOCIALISTS.

And SLM:

Who gave the party the name National Socialists?

Attila the freakin' Hun?

Or, is that the name they gave themselves.

Give your head a shake.

Summing up the leftie loonies, self evident here:

from Melanie Phillips:

"Liberals also think they are superior in intelligence to everyone else. So they don’t understand that the Islamists are actually playing them for suckers, exploiting the intrinsic weakness of a liberal society they correctly assess as decadent: no longer prepared to fight for its values because it no longer even knows what they are."

"What we are living through in the west is nothing short of a repudiation of the Enlightenment, a repudiation of reason; and its substitution by irrationality, obscurantism, bigotry and clerical totalitarianism — all facilitated by our so-called ‘liberal’ society, and all in the name of ‘human rights’. Western liberalism now embraces its Islamist mortal enemies and attacks its American and Israeli allies in the fight to defend civilisation."

"We are giving the Islamists the message that we are theirs for the taking. This is how liberalism may disappear up its own backside."

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=510

Thought-provoking stuff, sounder.

It is the inability to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong, as exemplified by some of our friends here, which will lead to their eventual enslavement.

They cannot even fantom basic facts ... a pitiful excuse for humanity right here in the west.

Unless the moral relativists actually articulate that they believe in the values of individual freedom and responsibility, somebody will come along and do it for them.

And, troubled souls that they are, will not like it one bit.

Just like they spit on the freedom they were born with, they will curse themselves for their impending life of slavery.

SYF, simplistically, these people can't handle reality unless it falls from the sky on their heads, alas too late to react. And they'll say 'I didn't see that'. Of course not, they are always looking away. They are worldly but not world-wise I would say.

"Liberals also think they are superior in intelligence to everyone else."

(1) I am not a Liberal. A Liberal is not a socialist. They are two different political philosophies.
(2) The Islamists are not playing any one for suckers.
(3) The only people who will take away my freedom are right-wing politicians, who want the right to electronically snoop on everything in the world and "render" me to third-world countries to be tortured.
(4) The Islamists will not take over the world. Although the United States will, at some point, enter a period of decline, they, nor Europe, will be supplanted by an Islamic Empire. More likely, China, India, or other Asian countries will form a counter-weight to American power.
(5) Hitler was not a leftist. Statism, and the use of the state to exterminate human beings does not make one a leftist. Eugene Victor Debbs, Tommy Douglas, Martin Luther King Jr. were leftists. Hitler was not.

"Nazism (a shortened version of National Socialist Party) is every bit a left-wing ideology as marxism, no matter how ignorant you are of the fact and no matter how loud you shout."

I know what it stands for. If Hitler was a Socialist, can you explain why IBM, Ford, IG Farben, and other private companies prospered under Hitler? What sort of Socialism was that?

As I mentioned before, if Hitler calling himself a Socialist means, he is a socialist, than East Germany calling itself the German Democratic Republic, makes it a Democracy. You can't have it both ways.

"It is the inability to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong, as exemplified by some of our friends here, which will lead to their eventual enslavement."

And who will enslave me? Is it the Muslims? How will they take over Canada? Has the RCMP been notified of this?

ditto

Posted by "Self-loathing" -
(3) The only people who will take away my freedom are right-wing politicians, who want the right to electronically snoop on everything in the world and "render" me to third-world countries to be tortured.
WHAATTT???
Sometimes I despair for you SL. Between your paranoia and your self-loathing, you seem to be on a slippery slope, and slipping fast.
My advice to you? Take a pill and lie down. You'll feel better in the morning.

"Between your paranoia and your self-loathing, you seem to be on a slippery slope, and slipping fast."

really? I guess you haven't heard of Maher Arar. Perhaps you should stop reading SDA and read actual newspapers.

SLM

Poor you, if all you read is newspapers, I can now understand why you are so ill informed.

Please, please, Jose and Self-Loathing chap . . . You've got Hollywood, the mainstream media, most of the newspapers, the universities and profs -- they're all on your side. We hear your "radical" ideas ALL.THE.TIME. You're sooo The Man. You're sooo mainstream and status quo. We get it, we get it. We're inundated with your predictable and inane arguments constantly, from all sides. We know, we know. Conservatives are evil. George W. Bush is evil. The West is evil. Capitalism is evil. Christianity is evil. Traditionalists are evil. Harper is evil. White Males are evil. Everyone else, and all other religions, and all the horrible things they do, are just misunderstood, and victims of The West. We know, we know.

Sigh.

You tell us nothing new. You tell us nothing radical and earth-shaking. We hear it ALL.THE.TIME. Please, let us have SDA, this one small corner of the internet, where we can be free from your predictable, boring, leftist group-think. Kate is so not mainstream, so not status-quo, so fun. That's why we love her so. Leave us our one small area, free from the brainwashed. OK? Go back to your mainstream blogs where you can congratulate yourselves on your "radicalism" and the success of the '60s.

You're boring. Predictable. Can you just give us one area free from your all-pervasive views?

Oh Mr. Loathing, I see you have defined yourself as a mere troll trying to get yourself banned.

Nice.

When even Jose says you are out of line, I need add nothing further.

Back under your bridge, hateful one. May your own bile poison you.

Ann, Jose is a shining pillar of rectitude compared to Mr. Loathing here. Loathsome was once a child who pulled the wings off flies and wants re-live his glory days on Kate's dime.

Major mental malfunction, obviously. Thank God he isn't living in my town.

If we ignore him, presently he'll go away. Sadists can't stand being ignored.

"Please, please, Jose and Self-Loathing chap . . . You've got Hollywood, the mainstream media, most of the newspapers, the universities and profs -- they're all on your side. We hear your "radical" ideas ALL.THE.TIME. You're sooo The Man. You're sooo mainstream and status quo. We get it, we get it. We're inundated with your predictable and inane arguments constantly, from all sides. We know, we know. Conservatives are evil. George W. Bush is evil. The West is evil. Capitalism is evil. Christianity is evil. Traditionalists are evil. Harper is evil. White Males are evil. Everyone else, and all other religions, and all the horrible things they do, are just misunderstood, and victims of The West. We know, we know"

THe media tells you this? Really? Where? Can you please bring it to my attention.

Is this the same media that uncritically cheered on the war in iraq? That tells us that Iraqi's, having been blown to bits by the Americans, have to take resposibility for the mess some on else made in their country.

Maybe your corner of the internet wouldn't be so small if you weren't all hopelessly insane - but hilarious none the less.

Is this the same media that uncritically cheered on the war in iraq?

Wow, you must not be taking in the same papers and newscasts as the rest of us. I never saw anything that was more "positive" than relative neutrality; everything else was focused on negatives (cost, fatalities, "blowback", etc) and criticism.

Self loathing and other socially retarded individuals of his kind, have the courage of their convictions..

They have never had to make the hard choices in life, ever experienced a different reality than the one they were sold in university, or in an underground Marxist newsletter..

They are thoroughly convinced of their opinions, which in real life do not stand up to scrutiny, and regurgitate dogma as fact and gleefully think they win the debate...they are blinded by an incestuous ideology that has blinkered them, and turned their critical thinking brain off.

My wish is for them to see the real world, not the idealized fantasy land so attractive, so comfortable, so unattainable...

The reality is that people like the leftists here, are truly damaged people who are dangerous in their thought and actions, because they are irrational and ignorant.

That you are tolerated in society says much about your opposites and their willingness to put up with ignorance and dysfunctional minds.

You argue for the sake of arguement with people (especially here at SDA..) who are for the most part, educated professionals with real world experience, yet you denigrate these people and interject with pure nonsense and leftist talking points.You are seriously deluded if you think that your ideas hold up to scrutiny in the cold light of day.

"You argue for the sake of arguement with people (especially here at SDA..) who are for the most part, educated professionals with real world experience, yet you denigrate these people and interject with pure nonsense and leftist talking points.You are seriously deluded if you think that your ideas hold up to scrutiny in the cold light of day."

Actually, I am an educated professional. I am an engineer working in project management in the private sector. I have not been in University for several years, own my own property, car, am active in my community.

I have friends of all different ethnic backgrounds, religions, and yes, political persuasions. I have been fortunate enough to travel to Europe and South America in my life. I dare say, that I have seen more of the world than any of you.

The fact that you regard me as crazy, is due to the fact, that this forum is merely a holding cell for angry, deluded, petty little children to vent their frustrations about the world.

The reason I argue, is because watching you act irrationally brings great amusement to me. In 30 years, when Europe is still white, and the great Muslim conspiracy has faded away, most of you won't even admit to having the opinions you do right now. And your little space, will be remembered in passing by rational people when they tell their children, about the racism and xenophobia that took grip, if only briefly, after 9/11.

"Wow, you must not be taking in the same papers and newscasts as the rest of us. I never saw anything that was more "positive" than relative neutrality; everything else was focused on negatives (cost, fatalities, "blowback", etc) and criticism"

It sounds like the newspapers you were reading were all ended up being correct in their predictions.

The ones I read all repeated George Bush's talking points about nuclear weapons, and what a great threat to the world Iraq was.

Incidentally, what should the papers have said? What would have been responsible journalism, according to the poor, beleagured SDAers? Questioning the President? Challenging the assumption that the US has a right to attack any country it wants?

The ones I read all repeated George Bush's talking points about nuclear weapons, and what a great threat to the world Iraq was.

What were you reading, tertiary-market US papers? I never saw anything like what you speak of.

Incidentally, what should the papers have said? What would have been responsible journalism, according to the poor, beleagured SDAers? Questioning the President? Challenging the assumption that the US has a right to attack any country it wants?

Well, for a start, how about straight reporting and contextualizing of the news, with editorialism saved for the editorial page?

I am an educated professional. I am an engineer working in project management in the private sector.

So, you work for an NGO, eh? Or a firm with a lot of CIDA contracts - Cowater, perhaps?

What were you reading, tertiary-market US papers? I never saw anything like what you speak of.

Or rather, sure, they would repeat this as it was news - are you saying that major policy statements from the POTUS are not news? What I mean was I didn't see any of the rah-rah-ism you initially referred to.

"Well, for a start, how about straight reporting and contextualizing of the news, with editorialism saved for the editorial page?"

Can you give examples of media that did not do this? Even Fox News leaves it's editorializing and news separate. Maybe the news isn't what you want to hear (Iraq going to hell, Muslims denouncing terrorists, etc.). I guess anything you disagree with is editorializing.

"So, you work for an NGO, eh? Or a firm with a lot of CIDA contracts - Cowater, perhaps?"

No, I do not work for a NGO. I work in the private sector, the free-market, product development, sell or die. I face customers, write requirements, do design reviews, have traveled the world on business.

"What I mean was I didn't see any of the rah-rah-ism you initially referred to."

Try Fox News. I hear they are pretty big, or something. Wall Street Journal editorial page.

One quick comment:
Saying that Iraq shouldn't be invaded because it won't work is a tactical judgement, not a moral judgement. If Hitler had said, we won't invade Russia because we'll loose, that does not make him a hippie pacifist any more than it makes news paper columnist hippie pacifists. Offering tactical criticism, is not the same as criticizing the moral framework that justifies the invasions in the first place.

All the yeas and nays about the U.S. going to Iraq have been dealt with, in detail, in other posts on this blog and in other blogs. SLM doesn't feel like doing the research(after all, research is for fascists . . . he just KNOWS the truth).

But Ok, here goes. Quick summary off the top of my head:

*Saddam tried to kill a former U.S. president, and Clinton bombed him for it (attempted assassination is an act of war in most nations' books).

*Clinton bombed Saddam a few more times, to distract people from Monica and to chastise him for failing to comply with UN regulations.

*Clinton, Gore, John Kerry, Pelosi, and many other beloved-by-leftists Democrats droned on and on and on about Saddam's dangerous WMDs. Quotes are readily available.

*Clinton planned out a whole regime-change plan for Iraq, in 1996 I believe, but I could be wrong on the year. Kept it on file in case of need. 9/11 supplied that need, but considering the vitriol directed at Bush, he should have been a Democrat before he applied the Democrats' plan.

*Saddam was linked to the first World Trade Centre Bombing, which is why it seemed so logical to link him to the actual destruction of the WTC.

*Saddam was freaking out his neighbours -- remember the Saudis were quite happy to let U.S. forces stay on their soil to protect them from him. Bush Sr. should have finished taking him out when all the world was on the U.S. side -- it was up to Jr. to finish the job now that it was far messier and harder.

*There were WMDs in Iraq that Saddam was forbidden to have according to the UN -- stockpiles of various chemicals and some long-range missiles. A commander of Saddam's airforce admitted that many of these forbidden weapons had been flown to Syria just before the U.S. came to Iraq. The NYTimes berated Bush because there were no WMDs, and then, to help kibosh the 2004 election for him, also berated him for allowing a warehouse of WMDs to be stolen right out from under the Marines' noses shortly after U.S. entered Iraq. So, were there WMDs or weren't there? (also, if Bush is so evil, why didn't he just plant the evidence after the invasion?)

*Saddam brutally gassed the Kurds. Yes, yes, we know all about the U.S. and Britian supplying the weapons so he could use them against Iran . . . is a previously gone-awry mistaken foreign policy supposed to stop the U.S. from ever stopping this monster? The Kurds deserved to have the promise fulfilled to them, made by Bush Sr. and finally delivered by Jr.

*Saddam was not complying with UN regulations, and #such-and-such (13?) of the regulations stipulated that Iraq would be invaded by a multi-national force if he did not comply. He played cat-and-mouse with inspectors and did not cooperate with inspectors, repeatedly. Bush and the Coalition repeatedly said they wanted to make the UN honour its own word on the regulations. The so-called "rush to war" took years as Saddam kept leading the inspectors around by the nose, and finally denying them access. He frantically said he'd give them access again, just before Bush decided to send the U.S. in.

*If the war was "just for oil" the U.S. would have just secured the oil fields and said "to hell with the rest of the country." But right from the start Bush said another goal of the war was to establish a democratic Iraq that would be at peace with its neighbours. He said that right from the start. Read his first speeches after 9/11.

*The Iraqis are trying valiently to build their country up again. The self-righteous EU and UN be helping them a lot more. It's not U.S. forces (aside from some very bad episodes with a few soldiers, and these soldiers have been severely punished) that are killing, maiming, torturing, beheading, and blowing people up in Iraq. It's Al Qaeda and others seeking to profit from sectarian violence. Christopher Hitchens makes a good case that Saddam's unstable regime would have imploded eventually, and all this violence would have occurred eventually, but there's a chance now, with U.S. help, that Iraq can come out of this without another dangerous strong-man in charge.

*Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Repeat, Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda, the group that bombed the U.S. ship Cole, that killed U.S. citizens in bombing in Africa (all on Clinton's watch), and that killed close to 3000 Americans on 9/11. So the U.S. is fighting Al Qaeda. In Iraq. And yes, Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. Every other M.E. nation had ties to Al Qaeda, and you're going to tell me that one guy who hated the U.S. most of all didn't? Is the U.S. the only nation on the planet not allowed to defend itself when it's attacked? (Sorry -- of course not; Israel is also not allowed to defend itself) Is the U.S. not allowed to take the fight to the attacker on his turf?

And do you know why you have possibly never ever heard or thought of any of this, SLM? Or if you did, you dismissed it as right-wing war-mongering for oil? BECAUSE THE MEDIA IS ON YOUR SIDE! Or at least, on the side of the Democrats. Remember, Conservatives and Republicans are automatically evil. If Bush had been a Democrat you and they would have lauded every move he made so far. After all, he is following Clinton's plan for regime-change.

Apologies for the long entry, everyone. Perhaps instead I should have just asked you all to read this wonderful link from someone styling himself "an old war dog."

http://www.oldwardogs.us/2007/07/not-even-a-cont.html

Please read that link and seek an honest answer to all his points, before you spout off with the inevitable "war-mongering, imperialist, Bush-lackey, xenophobic" etc. comments.

Oops, just remembered Kate linked me to this gentleman in the first place, in July. So some of you will be reading him again, but that can't hurt . . .

Another *:

Where was all the coverage in the media on the "oil-for-food" scandal, when Germany and France and Russia and Saddam all nicely benefitted from Iraq's oil, with the money going to weapons and not to food for Iraqis? Barely a mention. Information had to be scrounged for by conservative bloggers, and is never brought up when it's brought to all our attention constantly that Bush was a go-it-aloner who didn't have the cooperation of the previously mentioned 4 countries. Of course he didn't have their cooperation. They were cooperating with and benefitting from the despot who was starving his own people.

Why is the media so reluctant to highlight these things, or to keep harping on them as they do on gay Republican peccadilloes? (Of course, we'd all be puritanical persecutors for even bringing it up if he was a gay Democrat).

Simple. Conservatives = evil. Anything they do = evil. So anyone in opposition to them (Saddam, Russia, etc.) = good, or misunderstood, or made bad by evil conservative/U.S./Western influence.

Anyone claiming the media trumpeted and promoted and supported Bush's war on Iraq is truly stuck in a dense fog of . . . something. Maybe pot smoke.

ann:

Don't forget ... the self-named National Socialist party is right wing.

Makes about as much sense as saying Saskatchewan is in eastern Canada.

It's a case of no moral compass pointing in wacky directions and once the person is lost, not knowing which way is up or down, east or west, right or wrong.

"No, I do not work for a NGO. I work in the private sector, the free-market, product development, sell or die. I face customers, write requirements, do design reviews, have traveled the world on business."

I bet your employers don't know you talk like this on the internet, Loathsome.

Could we all stop feeding this troll now folks? Joke's over, eh?

Hey Ann, did you catch Senator Upchuck Schumer, (D-NY) on the floor of the Senate today? Limbaugh was all over it, ran the speech wall to wall. It must be up at U-Tube by now, a classic America SUCKS!!! speech, could have been delivered by Fidel Castro at a May Day parade.

Funny though, I see nothing on CNN about it. Half the problem with the MSM is what they don't cover.

"I bet your employers don't know you talk like this on the internet, Loathsome."

Does Kathy Shadie's employer know what she writes on her blog?

"Please read that link and seek an honest answer to all his points, before you spout off with the inevitable "war-mongering, imperialist, Bush-lackey, xenophobic" etc. comments."

As requested...

*Saddam tried to kill a former U.S. president, and Clinton bombed him for it (attempted assassination is an act of war in most nations' books).

And the people who carried out the order are in prison. Incidentally, how many foreign leaders did the US assasinate?

*Clinton bombed Saddam a few more times, to distract people from Monica and to chastise him for failing to comply with UN regulations.

Could you provide proof that it was done to distract people from Monica?

*Clinton, Gore, John Kerry, Pelosi, and many other beloved-by-leftists Democrats droned on and on and on about Saddam's dangerous WMDs. Quotes are readily available.

Yes, and they were all hypocrites, every last one of them.

*Clinton planned out a whole regime-change plan for Iraq, in 1996 I believe, but I could be wrong on the year. Kept it on file in case of need. 9/11 supplied that need, but considering the vitriol directed at Bush, he should have been a Democrat before he applied the Democrats' plan.

Yes, his plan was idiotic. Are you saying that because Clinton developed a bad plan, that Bush had no choice but to follow it up?

You're not actually justifying the Iraq invasion. You're just saying that because the Democrats gave it approval, then it must be okay.

*Saddam was linked to the first World Trade Centre Bombing, which is why it seemed so logical to link him to the actual destruction of the WTC.

No, this is not true. The first WTC bombing was carried about by extremists in New Jersey who had ties to bin Laden. And "linked" isn't proof. Lots of people are "linked" to bin Laden. Bush, Clinton, and much of the US political leadership are linked to the bin Laden family. Should we bomb them too?

*There were WMDs in Iraq that Saddam was forbidden to have according to the UN -- stockpiles of various chemicals and some long-range missiles. A commander of Saddam's airforce admitted that many of these forbidden weapons had been flown to Syria just before the U.S. came to Iraq. The NYTimes berated Bush because there were no WMDs, and then, to help kibosh the 2004 election for him, also berated him for allowing a warehouse of WMDs to be stolen right out from under the Marines' noses shortly after U.S. entered Iraq. So, were there WMDs or weren't there? (also, if Bush is so evil, why didn't he just plant the evidence after the invasion?)

So you're taking the word of one Iraqi defector as gospel? You're saying that Saddam disarmed himself before going to war? Saddam instructed his forces to wage a guerilla war against the Americans. Don't you think he would have left them an A-Bomb or two?

*Saddam brutally gassed the Kurds. Yes, yes, we know all about the U.S. and Britian supplying the weapons so he could use them against Iran . . . is a previously gone-awry mistaken foreign policy supposed to stop the U.S. from ever stopping this monster? The Kurds deserved to have the promise fulfilled to them, made by Bush Sr. and finally delivered by Jr.

And how will Turkey feel about having an free Kurdish state on their border? If the freedom of the Kurds is important to you, you should be asking for the US to bomb Turkey also.

*Saddam was not complying with UN regulations, and #such-and-such (13?) of the regulations stipulated that Iraq would be invaded by a multi-national force if he did not comply. He played cat-and-mouse with inspectors and did not cooperate with inspectors, repeatedly. Bush and the Coalition repeatedly said they wanted to make the UN honour its own word on the regulations. The so-called "rush to war" took years as Saddam kept leading the inspectors around by the nose, and finally denying them access. He frantically said he'd give them access again, just before Bush decided to send the U.S. in.

And when we will require the Israeli's to comply with their UN resolutions regarding occupied terrorities?

*If the war was "just for oil" the U.S. would have just secured the oil fields and said "to hell with the rest of the country." But right from the start Bush said another goal of the war was to establish a democratic Iraq that would be at peace with its neighbours. He said that right from the start. Read his first speeches after 9/11.

Ah, Bush said so, so it is true. What compelling critical thought. Even Stalin would've blushed at that kind of loyalty. Bush said the war wasn't about oil, so it isn't about oil. QED. Can't argue with logic about that.

*The Iraqis are trying valiently to build their country up again. The self-righteous EU and UN be helping them a lot more. It's not U.S. forces (aside from some very bad episodes with a few soldiers, and these soldiers have been severely punished) that are killing, maiming, torturing, beheading, and blowing people up in Iraq. It's Al Qaeda and others seeking to profit from sectarian violence. Christopher Hitchens makes a good case that Saddam's unstable regime would have imploded eventually, and all this violence would have occurred eventually, but there's a chance now, with U.S. help, that Iraq can come out of this without another dangerous strong-man in charge.

Iraq does need much international aid. You are correct. Maybe Iraq would have imploded, maybe it wouldn't. Maybe tomorrow, I'll get shot by some one in Jane/Finch in Toronto. That doesn't give me the right to go and shot them because "maybe" something might happen.

*Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Repeat, Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda, the group that bombed the U.S. ship Cole, that killed U.S. citizens in bombing in Africa (all on Clinton's watch), and that killed close to 3000 Americans on 9/11. So the U.S. is fighting Al Qaeda. In Iraq. And yes, Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. Every other M.E. nation had ties to Al Qaeda, and you're going to tell me that one guy who hated the U.S. most of all didn't? Is the U.S. the only nation on the planet not allowed to defend itself when it's attacked? (Sorry -- of course not; Israel is also not allowed to defend itself) Is the U.S. not allowed to take the fight to the attacker on his turf?

Al-Qaeda is in Iraq after the Americans attacked it. If the US were to say that al'Qaeda is in Edmonton, would they be allowed to attack? Are you saying they should be able to attack anyone anywhere in the world. Al'Qaeda is not a military organization or a country. They are a terrorist group with an ideological/political agenda. It is not the same as fighting a country.

"And do you know why you have possibly never ever heard or thought of any of this, SLM? Or if you did, you dismissed it as right-wing war-mongering for oil? BECAUSE THE MEDIA IS ON YOUR SIDE! Or at least, on the side of the Democrats. Remember, Conservatives and Republicans are automatically evil. If Bush had been a Democrat you and they would have lauded every move he made so far. After all, he is following Clinton's plan for regime-change."

I have heard every single thing that you mentioned. I heard it all from the MSM. The reason you think the MSM is not on my side, is because you are completely insane, as evidence by your inability to formulate a rational argument for war beyond, "Bush and Clinton said it is okay, so it must be okay".

"Could we all stop feeding this troll now folks? Joke's over, eh?"

No, they will not stop feeding me. You know why? Because I am right, and they are wrong. You have been wrong about everything.

That post by Ann was pathetic. "Bush said the war was to promote democracy" so it must be true. Pathetic, just pathetic. That isn't even funny. It is really a pathetic, sad, little childlike response.

But, you will keep feeding me. Why? Because you are weak. Because my posts remind you, that everything you believe is wrong - and that tortures you. Every time I post, you'll respond. And when you've got nothing left, you'll call me a moonbat, or beg Kate to delete the thread.

Keep it comin' SDAers. The MSM is taking over. The Muslims and CBC are spreading propaganda. Al'Qaeda is going to molest Calgary Stamps cheerleadres. Western civilization isn't going to save itself - you best get a move on.

""Bush said the war was to promote democracy" so it must be true. Pathetic"

That's not the point I made. Do you even read past the red rage in your eyeballs? I made the point that if the war was just for oil, the Americans would have secured the oil-fields and left the rest of the country to itself. But they didn't, and they're still there, in cities far away from the oilfields, fighting to give the Iraqis a better life than they've know for decades under Saddam's regime. U.S. soldiers do this while self-righteous leftoids pontificate safely behind their computers, in a Western world made safe and secure by so many U.S. lives and $ over the last century and into this one.

You're not worth their spit.

Did you even read the link posted several posts above? Of course not.

I had typed up a huge response to all your points, spending quite a bit of time on Israel, UN resolutions, and Clinton bombing Kosove for less drastic stuff than gassing Kurds (to great acclaim), as well as Churchill wanting to take Hitler out in the 30s (if he'd succeeded we'd never have known how many he saved, but we would have sure vilified such a war-mongering move) but lost it all when I pushed "Post", for some reason. So I give up. It's not worth any more of my time to try save your sorry soul from its downward-spiralling, lefty morass.

You're right, Phantom, one shouldn't feed the trolls. Especially the rabid ones, who rejoice in every account of suffering they hear from Iraq because it proves to them that they're right. And I've heard his arguments so often, so many times, from so many of his ilk . . . He can post here until his hero Osama makes his next video. I won't respond.

On to Kate's next topic!

Ann, that is more like it.

Lefty morass, Americans fighting to save me, that is the kind of insanity I like.

Can I suggest a new topic? How Islam and the Left are conspiring to destroy the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. Followed by how multiculturalism is turning Toronto into a city with more non-white people (not that we're racists, and any one who says we're racists is racist).

The Bible is very political. It's socialism at it's best. Helping one another is not Tory doctrine.

"The Bible is very political. It's socialism at it's best. Helping one another is not Tory doctrine."

I would say it is a Red-Tory doctrine. Eugene Forsey, a Red-Tory, was one of the finest Socialists in Canada.

However, I would note, that it all depends on how one interprets their religion. Parts of the Old Testatment are downright genocidal - worse than anything in the Koran. But the more lunatic aspects of it are, by and large, ignored by Christians of any influence.

"I wouldn’t be alone in thinking each time an artist or commentator insults Christians: friend, if you’re so brave, say that about Islam.

Show us your chocolate Mohammeds. Show us your Korans dipped in urine.

Where is the singer who will rip up a Koran as Marilyn Manson ripped up a Bible? Or will on television tear up a picture of Islam’s most honoured preacher as Sinead O’Connor shredded one of the great Pope John Paul II?

It’s not as if Islam doesn’t threaten our artists more than does Christianity.

See only the murder of film director Theo van Gogh or the fatwa on writer Salman Rushdie or the stabbing of Rushdie’s translator. Or see those deadly riots against the Mohammed cartoons.

So when I see a Western artist mock Christ, I see an artist advertising not his courage but his cowardice – by not daring to mock what would threaten him more . . .

This is a religion that’s always preached tolerance, reason and non-violence, even if too many of its followers have seemed deaf.

It’s also urged us to leave the judgment of others to God (a message I ignore for professional reasons). We are the beneficiaries of that preaching, even those of us who aren’t Christians. . . .

We can now vilify Jesus and damn priests, and risk nothing but hard looks from a soft bishop . . .

We dare all that because we do not actually fear what we condemn. We know Christians are taught not to punch our smarmy face, and we even count on it. Indeed, it is the very faith we mock that has made us so safe."

from an article by an honest agnostic:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_kinder_to_our_christians/

I bet your employers don't know you talk like this on the internet, Loathsome.

Of course, we assume he's being honest. Certainly dosen't write like an engineer, more like a student or academic in the SSHRC set.

I have to admit though, that having leftoids like this pop up makes the comments here more interesting than those at, say, LGF, which largely serve as an echo-chamber. Now if only the leftoids could mount a consistant argument and quit with the context-dropping, subject-changing, and snide attitudes, maybe there could be some decent arguments here.