David Thompson
Subscribe
Blog powered by Typepad

« Elsewhere (214) | Main | An Intellectual Being »

September 19, 2016

Comments

Liz

Perfect.

sH2

Bluff called. :-D

David

I suppose it’s a variation of the Schama-Zuckerberg effect.

See also this.

Rafi

"Please bear in mind that the greatest demand is for single males."

https://twitter.com/GodfreyElfwick/status/777510584426369024

David

Comedy aside, it’s a useful reminder that trolling – if that’s what we’re going to call it – can be a force for good, a necessary pushback against prevailing currents. In that, while one person’s pretentious virtue signalling is merely risible, when pretentious virtue signalling becomes fashionable and even a motor of social policy, it can be quite destructive. As many residents of, say, Sweden and Germany can now attest.

Hal

As many residents of, say, Sweden and Germany can now attest.

Weeel, if noting immigration increases, granting that some got to attest, with the rather definite awareness that the criminals quite remained the extreme minority when compared to the rest of the immigrants, and that such an extreme minority is rather prolly also outnumbered by the native criminals who already were and remain a different category of issue to assess.

---At least there is the definite advantage of being able to lump all immigrant criminals in with the native criminals, which has merely been going on for years . . . .

Such a pity about that Prohibition . . . after all, it was all for the best and what possibly could have gone wrong?!?!?!?!

Jonathan

Xir is an example for all concerned citizens no matter what race or gender they identify as.

Geezer

?!?!?!?!
My doctor told me not to ingest too much irony.

Nikw211

while one person’s pretentious virtue signalling is merely risible, when pretentious virtue signalling becomes fashionable and even a motor of social policy, it can be quite destructive

Not destructive, but related, I believe, is this.

So far, so awful, yes - but then it was only in May that we saw this which in turn led to this kind of thing.

So just what are they trying to say with that video exactly?

And whatever it is, is it what they actually intended?

Turk Turkleton

In that, while one person’s pretentious virtue signalling is merely risible, when pretentious virtue signalling becomes fashionable and even a motor of social policy, it can be quite destructive.

Ah ah ah! You wouldn't want to be charged with guilt by association for using verboten terminology, would you? Purge that wordcrime from your vocabulary if you know what's good for you!

Richard Cranium

"the rather definite awareness that the criminals quite remained the extreme minority when compared to the rest of the immigrants"

Well, since you are interested in precision and all that...

I believe that it can be stated that there are undeniable drawbacks for allowing these immigrants (if that's what you wish to call them) in. Small, perhaps, but present.

What, then, are the benefits for allowing these immigrants (if that's what you wish to call them) in?

Are the drawbacks greater than the benefits?

Hal

What, then, are the benefits for allowing these immigrants (if that's what you wish to call them) in?

Are the drawbacks greater than the benefits?

Ah . . . . Really???!?!?!!!!

Ah well, fine. What you are actually asking is What are the benefits of immigration, and are the drawbacks greater than the benefits.

No, you don't get to claim that the focus is These immigrants, for that I leave you to claim to defend, oh, for a totally easy reference, NINA.

From there, regarding immigration, yeah, rather blatantly easy historical references do rather tend to note immigration being rather handy for the receiving country . . . and yes, those are general references, where even where you'll have to go and be reminded on your own, anything that is more specific is also rather utterly easily picked up here and there and also reminding you of the same rather well documented and additional benefits . . . .

---And I'm spending more time typing up and formatting the above then I did pulling up quite random references . . . .

Oh yeah, there's one more thing. You still want to claim that to be a Syrian or a child of one is to be a criminal and has absolutely no benefit?? 'K fine, You do that.

Or try to. We'll just point and laugh.

dicentra

So this happened: Trump campaign asks, with appropriate illustrations, "If I told you that only three of these Skittles would kill you, would you still grab a handful?"

And so Skittles replies:

Skittles are candy. Refugees are people. We don't feel it's an appropriate analogy. We will respectfully refrain from further commentary as anything we say could be misinterpreted as marketing.
Brilliant.

Also, this.

I don't even know anymore.

dicentra

Ok, here's a fandom illustration https://twitter.com/Ricky_Vaughn99/status/778083939542073344

sH2

"If I told you that only three of these Skittles would kill you harass you for being gay and throw rocks at you, would you still grab a handful?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfW9inRkTpU

Microbillionaire

Hal: I point and laugh back.

Learn to discriminate. Insisting that all discussion of immigration be considered at the level of undifferentiated global humanity is like telling you you'll eat gruel and like it; it's food like any other, after all, and no, you don't get to claim that this kind of food is any better or worse than any other in any potential way. Bigot.

Fen Tiger

"We'll just point and laugh."

Does that "we" cover anyone other than yourself?

The cultural implications of receiving large numbers of Muslim immigrants are very serious: I can see no reason to believe that Western values of tolerance and pluralism can prevail in any society that has a Muslim majority (or large minority). The state of governance and civil/religious liberties across the Muslim world strongly suggests that this is so.

And the economic benefits that your Google links address aren't so obvious either.

R. Sherman

While it's certainly true that in the U.S., all immigrant groups have faced resistance from the locals at one time or another--see, e.g. newspaper editorials in St. Louis between 1838-1860 regarding the "German menace"--the immigrants shared a broad cultural foundation with their adopted country which facilitated assimilation. Further, immigrant economic contribution was inevitable inasmuch as there was no grab-bag of social benefits to which they were entitled merely by getting off the boat. The fear of the "German Menace" listed above disappeared in large part because the Germans rallied to the defense of the Union in 1861-1865.

Obviously, that's not the case today for reasons Fen mentions, even if there are those within the current crop of Islamic migrants who would be fine additions to a community all things being equal.

The real question is whether any nation has the right to restrict immigration as necessary for its own benefit. It's clear that a large segment of the population believe that such considerations are somehow tawdry. It's another manifestation of the penchant of some to feel guilty for things which are completely outside of their control.

Disclosure: I am married to an immigrant.

Chester Draws

The fear of the "German Menace" listed above disappeared in large part because the Germans rallied to the defense of the Union in 1861-1865.

Obviously, that's not the case today for reasons Fen mentions, ..

Are you claiming that immigrants in the UK and the USA today would not defend their new country? Because both the British and American armies are absolutely chock full of immigrants and children of new immigrants.

Plenty of Moslem servicemen have died in the Middle East in the service of their new countries. So much for the bigots saying that they will always put Islam above anything else.

I'm not for unrestrained immigration, but your post is a masterpiece in special pleading. You accept that previous waves of immigration were opposed for exactly the same reasons as this one, but that time was supposedly different. Why is just asserted as "obvious" rather than explained.

The German Menace is a very soft case. Why not examine the Russian, Polish and Jewish wave that came around 1900 to the US? They did not share any cultural background with mainstream Americans -- not religion, not food, not political culture, not language. Nothing really except being pale rather than dark. Yet they assimilated fine.

In New Zealand the Indians that arrive are not culturally from remotely the same backgrounds as the locals. Yet they assimilate very quickly indeed -- often faster than Britons (I've known lots of Britons who have returned to Britain because they couldn't settle, but I've never heard of an Indian going back to Fiji or India). So closeness of cultural background is not a determining feature.

Let's not forget that immigrants are choosing to leave their country of origin. That cannot be done without a conscious decision to make changes.

I am far more worried by taking refugees than I am by taking economic migrants. Refugees don't want to leave generally, and often assimilate with extreme difficulty because they would actually prefer to have stayed at home. That is a much bigger concern for me about taking Syrians than the fact that they are Moslem.

svh

"Sharia law preferable to American law."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU3G-bHCZhc

Paolo Pagliaro

Hal, on New Year's day did you observe 130,000 native Germans harassing women? Or even 80 Filipinos?
I'm asking because you were not impressed by the fact that 0.2% of the immigrants did that, on a single day.

How strange that a crime committed by 1000 immigrants on a single night in a single place amounts to 1000 totally distinct individual cases, without any underlying lesson to be learned, isn't it?

Microbillionaire

Plenty of Moslem servicemen have died in the Middle East in the service of their new countries. So much for the bigots saying that they will always put Islam above anything else.

I recall an accounting a while back indicating that America has lost more soldiers to such Moslem servicemen (Fort Hood et al) than it has lost Moslem servicemen, in the Middle East or elsewhere. So color me unconvinced on this point.

R. Sherman

Chester, you jump to too many conclusions about my comment--or deliberately misstate it for your own purposes--and then proceed to argue against numerious strawmen, all while tossing in the obligatory epithet "bigot." Well & nobly done, sir.

First, I made no assertions about the reasons for resistance in the past. But, by all means accuse me of that without evidence.

As for the German example, it was just that: Another example, one of many in our history. That's what the "e.g." bit means. As I said, "all immigrant groups have faced resistance from the locals at one time or another." Forgive my failing to do a ten thousand word history of immigration in the U.S.

The question is cultural assimilation--the point Fen makes and to which I referred--and whether certain groups are more likely to accomplish that than others. The Russian, Poles and Jews you cite had a deeper and broad Judeo-Christian background and secondly did not come from places where the destruction of Western society was preached on daily basis. As far as I know, among Hindus and Sikhs, that's not on their agenda.

Or, for another example, the Vietnamese couple who arrived here twenty years ago, whose sons are on my son's soccer team and proudly fly the American flag at their house. (Their favorite cuisine, BTW, is Mexican. The wife makes enchiladas which will kick your ass.)

It's not about food or religion or language or whether the immigrant comes a representative democracy. It's whether s/he are willing to set aside forever the those parts of their place of origin. I don't care where they come from; I care whether they wish to up-end the table where they've been invited to sit.

Fred the Fourth

No, no! It IS about food!
You haven't had Mexican food until you've had it from a truck owned by a Vietnamese couple.
Man Oh Man. Talk about your cultural Appropriation! Yum!

Hal

Hal, on New Year's day did you observe 130,000 native Germans harassing women?

. . . . ?????? What 130K, where, what?????

D'ye have citations, actual numbers with actual references, links . . . ?? Otherwise you may as well also announce that You Witnessed it Personally, from your private base on the moon . . . .

Hal

You haven't had Mexican food until you've had it from a truck owned by a Vietnamese couple.

One pizza place near me has a staff of all Asian Indian, another is all Chinese.

----The former is bog standard, out of the box, low end franchise with the franchise varieties of pizzas, the latter a standalone shop that does. oh, basically the same sorts of pizzas as everyone else and yeah, a level up from the franchise . . .

Hal

Commentary on the Beeb.

HRH Prince Philip
‏@HRH_PrincePhil
HRH Prince Philip Retweeted Ben Thompson
Where does one apply to be Mike Ashley's cleaning lady?

Dan

The only time I have been stoned in public was in Geneva, by a pack of Muslims unhappy about a group of Jews walking to synagogue. It's all fun and games until they stone YOU Hal, then you start to think about self-preservation rather than being nice to foreigners.

Hal

The only time I have been stoned in public was in Geneva, by a pack of Muslims unhappy about a group of Jews walking to synagogue.

So what you're noting is that there is a law and local customs assimilation issue, not an immigration issue---Yes, you're going to note the subtlety there.

As you state yourself, in Geneva.

---Albeit the situation would be basically the same in Geneva, New York, Geneva, Illinois, Geneva, Ohio, Geneva . . . . . . .

abacab

I believe the "bowl of skittles" thing is an old feminist meme about men being rapists. Which is probably why Trump Jr. used it as it is quite appropriate, and makes the media fall over themselves before someone finally picks up on its origins, at which point it'll be buried quickly to avoid offending the feminists.

Chester Draws

The Russian, Poles and Jews you cite had a deeper and broad Judeo-Christian background

Oh, you're kidding! You think Jews from the Shtetl shared any background with WASP Americans? Your "deeper and broad Judeo-Christian background" is all in your head. The cultural links between a Yiddish speaking Orthodox Jew from Tsarist Russia and early 20th Century America were effectively zero.

and secondly did not come from places where the destruction of Western society was preached on daily basis.

Actually, the Russian ones did, if they came after 1917. Those before that came from a conservative autocracy, not some sort of neo-democracy on the Don. They did not bring any knowledge of, or love for, Western democratic norms.

Fen Tiger

"Your "deeper and broad Judeo-Christian background" is all in your head."

That isn't only not right, it's not even wrong.

The legal and social cultures of all Western countries are marked profoundly by their origins as part of Christendom. This applies equally to countries that originated as settled colonies of Western countries. Even where different legal systems are in use (e.g. based on Common or Roman Law), the most profound underlying principles are shared.

Those countries that were on the other side of the Great Schism are recognisably part of Christendom, tho' the divergence has been greater. And Jews, for all their difficulties with Christendom, have always been part of this shared tradition, culture and history.

Islam does not share this tradition. Indeed, it consciously rejects the idea that it has inherited anything from anyone anywhere, since it was perfect out of the box. Many Muslims, in the privacy of their thoughts, must see this is nonsense: but it is the official line.

So, allow Muslim numbers to edge upwards and, sooner rather than later, calls for sharia to be imposed (along with all the cultural baggage) will follow. The threat of violence is implicit within the demand, and no amount of NTDWI-ing will make it less real.

Is that a serious problem? I rather think it is.

WTP

What Fen Tiger said.

R. Sherman

Chester, I was going to respond, but Fen immediately above did so quite well. I'll note only that you continue to refuse to respond to the original points made by Fen farther above and me, preferring to try to drag the argument into meaningless diversions by derailing the discussion of general trends, inclinations & probablities among large, discrete demographic groups and accusing those whose opinions differ from yours of bad faith or imbecility. Again, well & nobly done.

Ten

I believe the "bowl of skittles" thing is an old feminist meme about men being rapists. Which is probably why Trump Jr. used it as it is quite appropriate, and makes the media fall over themselves before someone finally picks up on its origins, at which point it'll be buried quickly to avoid offending the feminists.

Ditto the NeverTrumpers.

Hal

Oops, oops, and oops.

Hal

Jeremy Corbyn suggests he wants to nationalise Bake Off

It was after a banner waved by one of his supporters in Centenary Square - bearing the message 'nationalise Bake Off' - caught the MP's eye during his speech.

He said he particularly liked the banner and added: "The fate of Bake Off was decided when we allowed it to contract out its programme-making to someone else. The public lost ownership of Bake Off.”

"Shall we get it back?" he added to loud cheers.

Theophrastus

Chester

In your view, are all cultures equally compatible, or are some cultures less compatible with other cultures?

Jonathan

Islam does not share this tradition.

On the contrary, it's clear that Mohammed had read both the Torah and the Bible because the Koran has many ideas and stories in common with them, although Islam has more in common with the Judaism of the 7th century than it does with Christianity which is somewhat of a rejection of the Judaism of Jesus's time.

And Jews, for all their difficulties with Christendom, have always been part of this shared tradition, culture and history.

Jews have certainly lived in Western and Christian countries so obviously share some of its history. As to whether they share Western culture and values? I think that's a moot point:- secular Jews have adopted some of the bits of Western culture that they like while rejecting other bits. Religious Jews however, like religious Muslims, largely reject it.

redlonghorn

Religious Jews however, like religious Muslims, largely reject it.

I don't see Orthodox Jews gang-raping women on New Years Eve, or planting bombs in New York and New Jersey, or going on stabbing/shooting sprees at malls in Minnesota and Washington state. Even the most hardcore Orthodox Jew is not the same as a highly religious Muslim, nor are the more devout Christians, Hindus, etc...

Jonathan

I don't see Orthodox Jews gang-raping women on New Years Eve, or planting bombs in New York and New Jersey

I didn't say they did, just that they reject Western culture.

wtp

I didn't say they did, just that they reject Western culture.

Judging from the Sunni-on-Shiite/Shiite-on-Sunni/etc. violence, the bombing of mosques done overwhelmingly by other Muslims, it seems that they even reject their own culture. What little of it there is left. Ahh, but can you blame them?

Hal

. . . it's clear that Mohammed had read both the Torah and the Bible because the Koran has many ideas and stories in common with them, although Islam has more in common with the Judaism of the 7th century than it does with Christianity which is somewhat of a rejection of the Judaism of Jesus's time.

As the popular religious term goes, Bingo!!!

Judaism and Christianity and Islam have always been, are, and will remain the rather closely related, extremely similar and overlapping and interlinked siblings that are the Abrahamic religions.

This trio of cousins are not Buddhism, which is a religion rather than a faith and has always been totally different from the interchangable trio. The trio are not even the wide ranging general cluster that is labeled as Hinduism, albeit that anything that involves worshiping some god---Modi as one example, and almost Trump as well---is definitely closer to the trio than Buddhism . . .

Judging from the Sunni-on-Shiite/Shiite-on-Sunni/etc. violence, the bombing of mosques done overwhelmingly by other Muslims, it seems that they even reject their own culture.

And, as we've discussed and confirmed before, the quarreling branches of Islam are now doing what the quarreling branches of Christianity did before them, and exactly as the quarreling branches of Judaism also were doing around the time that Christianity was being thought up . . . .

Sooo, at this point, we've seen this before:

The Muslim world now, like “Christendom” in the 16th century, is made up of many independent countries. And the current phase of the Muslim wars of religion is being fought out between Shias and Sunnis in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, just as the first phase of the Christian wars of religion was fought out mainly between Catholics and Protestants in individual countries.

And we're seeing that now:

The Middle East is a disaster area but it is an isolated disaster area, apart from occasional small-scale terrorist outrages in Western countries. To live in fear of a world-wide Islamic caliphate is as delusional as to hope for it.

Oh, and yes indeed, a scattering of lunatics have been quite merely a a scattering of lunatics and not any sort of major concern.

That may sound a bit uncharitable, but respect for the innocent people killed by terrorists does not require us to take leave of our senses. What is happening now is the media feeding frenzy that has become almost a statutory requirement after every terrorist attack in the West.

Is there indeed a genuine cause for concern these days? Yes, but the current automobile version of it only goes back a century or so . . .

. . . each year, with some fluctuation, the number of people killed in car crashes in the United States tops 40,000. More people are killed on the roads each month than were killed in the September 11 attacks.

John Adams is also quoted in Traffic as well as elsewhere:

7/7 is Britain's 9/11. . . . .

In Britain on an average day nine people die and over 800 are injured in road accidents. The mangled metal, the pain of the victims, and the grief of families and friends, one might suppose, are similar in both cases. Measured in terms of life and limb, 7/7 represented six days of death on the road. But thousands do not gather weekly in Trafalgar Square to manifest their collective concern.

And yes, there are the horrified shrieks of But, but, but, but what about the arrival of Them!!!!!.

Yes, as far as conflicting cultures, there is the concern of assimilation---but that, too, has been gone over.

wtp

And, as we've discussed and confirmed before, the quarreling branches of Islam are now doing what the quarreling branches of Christianity did before them, and exactly as the quarreling branches of Judaism also were doing around the time that Christianity was being thought up . . . .

Sooo, at this point, we've seen this before:

The Muslim world now, like “Christendom” in the 16th century, is made up of many independent countries. And the current phase of the Muslim wars of religion is being fought out between Shias and Sunnis in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, just as the first phase of the Christian wars of religion was fought out mainly between Catholics and Protestants in individual countries.

This really is a tiresome argument. Shiite and Sunni have been killing each other ever since Mohammed died. It's not like Islam was all peaceful back then and only Christianity was at war. Everyone was killing everyone in the 16th Century. Tamerlane (14th/15th century if you wanna get picky) was a viscous murdering bastard. But he loved him his Islam back in the day. It is estimated he killed 5% of the world population at the time. Iran/Persia population didn't recover from his conquests until the 20th century.

wtp

Oh yes, and as for this nonsense popular with hipsters and such...

In Britain on an average day nine people die and over 800 are injured in road accidents. The mangled metal, the pain of the victims, and the grief of families and friends, one might suppose, are similar in both cases. Measured in terms of life and limb, 7/7 represented six days of death on the road. But thousands do not gather weekly in Trafalgar Square to manifest their collective concern.

Similar to what the most awesomest totally cool head hipster BHO said about bathtub falls killing more people than terrorism. The point is bathtubs are not actively engaged in trying to kill us. They don't stalk people in shopping malls or fly airplanes into buildings.

Hal

This really is a tiresome argument.

Observation y'mean? There isn't an argument being presented there.

Tamerlane (14th/15th century if you wanna get picky) was a viscous murdering bastard. But he loved him his Islam back in the day. It is estimated he killed 5% of the world population at the time. Iran/Persia population didn't recover from his conquests until the 20th century.

So as you're agreeing, just like the Catholics and the Protestants back a bit . . .

. . . just as the first phase of the Christian wars of religion was fought out mainly between Catholics and Protestants in individual countries.

From the start of the conflict in Europe, however, each European state tried to help its co-believers in neighbouring countries as well, and alliances were increasingly shaped by religious considerations. In the second phase, these alliances dragged most of Europe into the catastrophic Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), fought mostly in the middle of Europe but involving armies from as far apart as Sweden and Spain.

The main battleground, Germany, lost between one-third and one-half of its population. Nobody won, of course, and in the very long run everybody just lost interest in the question. But it was a very great waste of lives, time and money.

The Muslim world is already caught up in the first phase of a comparable process, but it is not condemned to go the whole distance. One big difference is that the Sunni-Shia split is ancient – more than 1,350 years old – whereas the Catholic-Protestant split was new and still full of passion at the time of the Christian wars.

More than 99 percent of today’s Muslims were simply born Sunni or Shia, whereas many 16th-century Christians had made a conscious choice about their religion. The current killings in the Muslim world are mostly driven by state policy, so maybe Muslims will not throw away a couple of generations following the same foolish, bloody road that the Christians took 500 years ago.

. . . about bathtub falls killing more people than terrorism. The point is bathtubs are not actively engaged in trying to kill us. They don't stalk people in shopping malls or fly airplanes into buildings.

Exactly. On one hand, there is a collection of assorted lunatics claiming that there should be assorted mayhem, where as noted,

The Middle East is a disaster area but it is an isolated disaster area, apart from occasional small-scale terrorist outrages in Western countries. To live in fear of a world-wide Islamic caliphate is as delusional as to hope for it.

And then on the other hand, there is some apparently larger number of claimed deaths by perfectly innocuous bathtubs, and there are the noted traffic deaths where the traffic does not go about declaring Death To Pedestrians!!!

Quite yes, absolutely, anyone who has to be among or goes to be among the Islamist lunatics---Not Muslims, Islamist lunatics----is not expected to have any sort of extended lifespan. Then again, anyone who goes wandering out on the track during the Indianapolis 500 is also not expected to have any sort of extended lifespan.

And when the reverse is done, unplanned and unintended deaths by vehicle resemble that of World War rates of death, and quite by contrast, the lunatics with intent still manage to have a totally piss poor level of success.

Soo, as you're acknowledging, yes there are deaths by lightening, there are deaths by homicidal lunatics, there are deaths by plane crash, and all three causes of death remain quite genuine, but remain extremely minor matters that get headlines because of being so unusual and rare.

Geezer

I'll take "Terrorism" for 200, Alex.

The answer is: The world's foremost purveyor of violence, aggression, and intolerance since the seventh century.

Hal

The answer is: . . .

Numbers? Or are you just enabling?

Geezer

Alex provided the answer. What is the question?

wtp

TL;BSIHNBTDRN...

So as you're agreeing,
Bakatcha...For most of human existence life was nasty, brutish, and short for a reason. It was this way for Europeans, Africans, Asians, Native Americans, on down the line. As I stated previously, to say that "well the Christians were all killing each other in the 16th century" is to ignore the fact that such was life for everyone. The point is, the vast majority of people on this planet have progressed to some extent beyond that. Yes there are ideological differences, religious differences, etc. etc. etc. To excuse Islamic hate, murder, and killing, be it xenophobic or intramural, as "it's just a phase they're going through" is wishful thinking based on a parallel that doesn't exist.

Not Muslims, Islamist lunatics
Lunatics do not organize. I have no fear that if we let John Hinkley and Mark David Chapman out of prison that they will join forces or learn to fly airplanes into buildings. Even if they somehow do quote the same religious text, such people are truly mentally unstable. They have a real mental illness. The people who build sophisticated bombs, who train with AK-47s to work in unison attacking a European capital or travel to MUSLIM countries to learn their death trade so that they can return to the West to kill innocents are not mentally ill. They are committing conscious acts.

More than 99 percent of today’s Muslims were simply born Sunni or Shia, whereas many 16th-century Christians had made a conscious choice about their religion. The current killings in the Muslim world are mostly driven by state policy, so maybe Muslims will not throw away a couple of generations following the same foolish, bloody road that the Christians took 500 years ago.
This is so messed up there's no telling where to start. You can slice it so many ways. So Muslims are unthinking drones but Christians are philosophic? "Driven by state policy"...what? Even if true, WTF does that have to do with anything? It's still Muslims killing with the aid of the state. And every one of those states that aid them are heavily Islamic. Even the more secular ones. Thanks to Attaturk, Turkey was the lone exception while it lasted but even it is slipping back into theocracy. Unless this douchey statement is implying that Muslim killings are driven by the policies of Western states. It's logical gobbletygook. "so maybe Muslims will not throw away a couple of generations following the same foolish, bloody road that the Christians took 500 years ago"...What means "maybe"? It's what they've been doing for generations already.

And of course I must say this or the cry of RAAAACISM will come out, yes most Muslims are not interested in these things. And there truly are many, many good and decent Muslims. I even know a few. That doesn't excuse the fact that large numbers of them are full of hate for all non-Muslims. When a Tim McViegh or the KKK or any other western terrorist commits horrific crimes, you don't find large numbers of Christians or Jews dancing in the streets celebrating.

What is Islam?

Hal

It's still Muslims killing with the aid of the state.

'Ang on, 'ang on, 'ang on, 'ang on.

Which state?!?!?!

Daesh??? Daesh is a collection of lunatics undergoing the process of being walled off, and is not a state.

Any of the actual states?

Saudi Arabia under its previous monarchs was very cautious and conservative in its foreign policy. It subsidised various extreme Sunni groups in other countries, but it clung tightly to its American alliance and never engaged directly in adventures abroad

The new Saudi king, Salman, is 80 years old and infirm, so in practice most decisions are made by his nephew, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef (aged 56), or his son, Deputy Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (aged only 30). There is intense competition between the two men for the succession to the throne, and the decisions coming out of Riyadh have been much bolder than ever before.

The past nine months have seen a major Saudi Arabian military intervention against the Shia side in the Yemeni civil war, the creation of a Saudi-led alliance of almost all the Sunni-majority Arab states, and now the execution of a Shia leader in Saudi Arabia that was clearly calculated to cause a diplomatic breach with Iran.

It’s just dynastic politics, in other words, not some inevitable geopolitical juggernaut. But it was similar dynastic politics half a millennium ago that triggered the worst phase of the Christian wars of religion.

And so yes, yes most Muslims are not interested in these things. And there truly are many, many good and decent Muslims. . . . . .

Hal

What is Islam?

Ehn, as noted, it's another one of the several often interchangeable Abrahamic faiths, even with the common confusion of faith vs religion.

Hal

. . . . and did the filters get clogged?? Ah, well, David can find and toss a redundancy if there is one . . .

It's still Muslims killing with the aid of the state.

'Ang on, 'ang on, 'ang on, 'ang on.

Which state?!??!?!

Daesh??? Daesh is a collection of lunatics in the process of being walled off and is not a state.

The actual existing states that contain Muslims?

Saudi Arabia under its previous monarchs was very cautious and conservative in its foreign policy. It subsidised various extreme Sunni groups in other countries, but it clung tightly to its American alliance and never engaged directly in adventures abroad

The new Saudi king, Salman, is 80 years old and infirm, so in practice most decisions are made by his nephew, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef (aged 56), or his son, Deputy Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (aged only 30). There is intense competition between the two men for the succession to the throne, and the decisions coming out of Riyadh have been much bolder than ever before.

The past nine months have seen a major Saudi Arabian military intervention against the Shia side in the Yemeni civil war, the creation of a Saudi-led alliance of almost all the Sunni-majority Arab states, and now the execution of a Shia leader in Saudi Arabia that was clearly calculated to cause a diplomatic breach with Iran.

It’s just dynastic politics, in other words, not some inevitable geopolitical juggernaut. But it was similar dynastic politics half a millennium ago that triggered the worst phase of the Christian wars of religion.

And of course I must say this or the cry of RAAAACISM will come out

??? Humans are a race. Muslims are not a race. Muslims are those who practice one of the Abrahamic faiths.

Soooo, as you point out, yes most Muslims are not interested in these things. And there truly are many, many good and decent Muslims.

Therefore, again as noted, To live in fear of a world-wide Islamic caliphate is as delusional as to hope for it.

Hal

Oy. Yes, the filters went totally sideways there . . . . . I saw a post go up, then disappear, then the second post went up just fine, so on to the puzzled rebuild of the first with additions as they came to mind.

I'll call this my version of the HTML of cascade . . . .

wtp

OK, let's see where we are and how we got here...
1) There was a discussion concerning Jews and Muslims and a case made that both or elements of both or elements of one more than the other or whatevs reject Western culture.
2) I make silly little throwaway post suggesting Muslims (IN THE CURRENT MODERN CONTEXT) reject even their own culture(s).
3) You present Great Wall of Text on various points but referencing two specific points, one in direct reference to what I had stated, with which I disagree
4) Another GWoT from you dancing around what I had said, bringing in even more weak thinking regarding mental illness, etc.
5) I respond to what little coherence I can pull from GWoT with my own GWoT (because can't bring a knife to a gun fight)
6) Right off the bat you link to a lame ass Eric Clapton cover of some freakin' Leadbelly tune about a province in Canada...followed by more GWoT. TL;DR. I don't even have a job right now and I just don't have any more time for this. You have a nice day out there in hipster heaven, m'k?

Hal

Heh.

. . . with which I disagree . . .

Deny is the word, rather than disagree. And then the problem with denial will always remain the number of the informed on hand who will read of the demanded denial, scratch their heads, hand off the latest handy link and ask Cleopatra how the barge is today . . .

The comments to this entry are closed.

For Amazon US use this link .

Your filthy consumerism supports this blog.

Blogroll