Are We At War With Islam?

NoC_T said:

How peculiar then, that that those who commit atrocities in the name of Islam are an infinitessimal fraction, far far less than 1% of total adherents. Does that not strike you as underachievement? Wow. They're a lazy lot, those muslims.

Again, I could post any number of examples of those claiming Christianity and Judaism, who either imply or blatantly call for violence and retribution for imagined slights. I've suffered through many such interminable diatribes at the hands of anti-Semites, for example. Example after example of witlings who claim Judaism, yelling and screaming for 'revenge'. They're a fringe, dude.



Your insistence that Islam is somehow unique in that capacity, is so much empty rhetoric.

I've yet to suffer an assassination attempt at the hands of the muslims who own the local takeaway.

Click to expand...

As the casual observer will have noted, the standing armies, especially the combat troops of all major nations are a small fraction of those nations populations, and yet generally enjoy the support of the bulk of those nations' populace.

A few minutes to a few hours of earnest study will reveal that Jihadis tend to enjoy great support, material, social, religious and emotional in the Islamic diaspora, or Dar al-Islam, and very little rejection in any form intended to be consumed by other Muslims, as opposed to gullible Westerners.

Again, a casual study of Traditional Islam will inform you about Dar al-'Ahd. Muslims are permitted and encouraged to be the very soul of a peaceful minority --when they're a weak minority. Even so, there's a reason that I keep stressing the term Traditional Islam. Mohammedans who actually want to live in peace and amity with people of other religions, interestingly have radically departed from Islam as it is practiced in most of the world. Incidentally, they are often seen as heretics, and worthy of death.

I invite you to make a study of these things for yourself. The information is readily available.

As for citing "any number of examples of those claiming Christianity and Judaism, who either imply or blatantly call for violence and retribution for imagined slights," that is utterly irrelevant in light of the fact that if I were to tell you right now that an improvised explosive device just blew up in a Cincinnati Mall almost no one would be surprised if the perpetrator's name was "Mohammad."

Again I stress, that I have very little interest, other than a certain revulsion, at the sweet, sweet fantasies that politically correct people spin for themselves, as they did in England in the Chamberlain Years, to try to pretend that Evil would go away if ignored. That sort of cowardice is suicidal. And in the case of people who shield behind soldiers and civilians more likely to be confronted with fatal Reality, murderous.

Oftencold said:

As the casual observer will have noted, the standing armies, especially the combat troops of all major nations are a small fraction of those nations populations, and yet generally enjoy the support of the bulk of those nations' populace.

A few minutes to a few hours of earnest study will reveal that Jihadis tend to enjoy great support, material, social, religious and emotional in the Islamic diaspora, or Dar al-Islam, and very little rejection in any form intended to be consumed by other Muslims, as opposed to gullible Westerners.

Again, a casual study of Traditional Islam will inform you about Dar al-'Ahd. Muslims are permitted and encouraged to be the very soul of a peaceful minority --when they're a weak minority. Even so, there's a reason that I keep stressing the term Traditional Islam. Mohammedans who actually want to live in peace and amity with people of other religions, interestingly have radically departed from Islam as it is practiced in most of the world. Incidentally, they are often seen as heretics, and worthy of death.

I invite you to make a study of these things for yourself. The information is readily available.

As for citing "any number of examples of those claiming Christianity and Judaism, who either imply or blatantly call for violence and retribution for imagined slights," that is utterly irrelevant in light of the fact that if I were to tell you right now that an improvised explosive device just blew up in a Cincinnati Mall almost no one would be surprised if the perpetrator's name was "Mohammad."

Again I stress, that I have very little interest, other than a certain revulsion, at the sweet, sweet fantasies that politically correct people spin for themselves, as they did in England in the Chamberlain Years, to try to pretend that Evil would go away if ignored. That sort of cowardice is suicidal. And in the case of people who shield behind soldiers and civilians more likely to be confronted with fatal Reality, murderous.

Click to expand...

As to support for combat troops, are Islamist terrorists officially recognised as part of their host state's military? It seems inapplicable as an analogy. Terrorists operate beyond the law; domestic or international. What do you mean by 'the bulk'? Surely not the majority, who are generally vocal in their opposition.

My pointing to the Jewish extremist fringe couldn't have been irrelevant, since there are direct and unambiguous parallels. Doubtless you find such analogies to be inconvenient, but there you have it. By no means are Islamists a novelty.

This isn't political correctness, btw, so much as appraisal unfettered by agenda.

Let's not deflect by referencing Chamberlain's doddering ineptitude as anything other than what it was, okay? It's tangential and hypocritical. Because even after the threat could no longer be denied, your country sat out the first two years, and with no such excuse. You mentioned cowardice?

Oftencold said:

As the casual observer will have noted, the standing armies, especially the combat troops of all major nations are a small fraction of those nations populations, and yet generally enjoy the support of the bulk of those nations' populace.

A few minutes to a few hours of earnest study will reveal that Jihadis tend to enjoy great support, material, social, religious and emotional in the Islamic diaspora, or Dar al-Islam, and very little rejection in any form intended to be consumed by other Muslims, as opposed to gullible Westerners.

Again, a casual study of Traditional Islam will inform you about Dar al-'Ahd. Muslims are permitted and encouraged to be the very soul of a peaceful minority --when they're a weak minority. Even so, there's a reason that I keep stressing the term Traditional Islam. Mohammedans who actually want to live in peace and amity with people of other religions, interestingly have radically departed from Islam as it is practiced in most of the world. Incidentally, they are often seen as heretics, and worthy of death.

I invite you to make a study of these things for yourself. The information is readily available.

As for citing "any number of examples of those claiming Christianity and Judaism, who either imply or blatantly call for violence and retribution for imagined slights," that is utterly irrelevant in light of the fact that if I were to tell you right now that an improvised explosive device just blew up in a Cincinnati Mall almost no one would be surprised if the perpetrator's name was "Mohammad."

Again I stress, that I have very little interest, other than a certain revulsion, at the sweet, sweet fantasies that politically correct people spin for themselves, as they did in England in the Chamberlain Years, to try to pretend that Evil would go away if ignored. That sort of cowardice is suicidal. And in the case of people who shield behind soldiers and civilians more likely to be confronted with fatal Reality, murderous.

Click to expand...

saddam was not islamist

neither was qaddafi .


teh west loves radical islamists more than me and helps them overthrow teh secular nationalist (not imperialist ) regimes

Medusa said:

saddam was not islamist

neither was qaddafi .


teh west loves radical islamists more than me and helps them overthrow teh secular nationalist (not imperialist ) regimes

Click to expand...

So it's really good that we weren't discussing them.

However, the people who have murdered several thousand of your countrymen in the last twelve years of so, and who threaten to continue in the vein, who celebrate the hands-on murder of children and housewives in Israel, and who are dedicated to your destruction are in fact, jihadis in the service of Traditional Islam. I suggest that you accept deal with this reality. Fantasies of a benign Islam are a poor shield against bullets and shrapnel.

NoC_T said:

Let's not deflect by referencing Chamberlain's doddering ineptitude as anything other than what it was, okay? It's tangential and hypocritical. Because even after the threat could no longer be denied, your country sat out the first two years, and with no such excuse. You mentioned cowardice?

Click to expand...

Um, no. Chamberlain and his ilk lived in a fantasy world in which their aversion to war was believed to be shared universally, including in cultures where the concepts and values of war, conquest and peace were quite different. It nearly destroyed Europe, and was largely responsible for the loss of the British Empire. It was suicidal thinking, or lack of thinking. The example of the Chamberlain Doctrine is central to the general lack of understanding that now imperils our own future.

Chamberlain, like the Modern American Left believed that everyone in Earth understood peace to be gentle coexistence, tolerance, and generally ignoring differences wherever possible. The Teutonic outlook, much as the Muslim outlook (oh, do study it for yourself please, ) would more correctly describe peace as the satate which comes after ones enemies are destroyed of completely subjugated.


Chamberlain, like the Modern American Left and Western Culture generally, saw each individual is something special, unique and irreplaceable and therefore possessed of an almost limitless abstract value. They failed to grasp, as so many of us do today, that militaristic, theocratic and conquest oriented societies have an affinity for the archetype, which is perfect if unattainable, and immortal. People can be replaced with less distress because they all be replaced while the Prefect Vision endures. So, the Palestinian's "Mother of the Nation," could become famous and a political figure for publishing videos of herself strapping suicide vest on her sons and sending them to die. There would be other sons from other mothers, the the shinning image of the Jihadi remained.

Chamberlain, like the Modern American Left refused to understand that empathy, sympathy, mercy and compassion are all cultural traits, not universal ones. Thus neither were or are equipped to grasp that their appeals to those laudable qualities would carry little weight with aggressive people conditioned instead to see the destruction and suffering of their enemies as supremely virtuous.

Chamberlain, like the Modern American Left, did not grasp the immense industrial, agricultural, social and economic fragility of advanced nations. Therefore, they were unprepared for the fact that a brutal but determined smaller entity could threaten them with destruction credibly. The Americans, as they discovered at Pearl Harbor were even more guilty of this sort of lethal ignorance.


To be frank, as I'm childless, unmarried and old enough to understand viscerally that the sun is likely to continue to rise after I'm gone, I view these things with increasing resignation. Once again, a generation has come to power with the vanity to assume that the ways in which it thinks and its basic values are universal. Fantasies of Utopia are again in vogue, "peace for our time." And once again, clearly stated and demonstrated merciless aggression is papered over with daydream of a world that will never be. Casandra is not only ignored but ridiculed.

When the end of your culture and way of life comes, I ask that you all not bleed on my grave.

Oftencold said:

When the end of your culture and way of life comes, I ask that you all not bleed on my grave.

Click to expand...

Right. The oft-predicted 'rivers of blood'.

Well, we're now over 40 years down the line, and we're still at 93% predominantly white, here. How about you guys? Any sign of those scimitar-wielding 'hordes'?

I won't barricade the door just yet. lulz

NoC_T said:

Right. The oft-predicted 'rivers of blood'.

Well, we're now over 40 years down the line, and we're still at 93% predominantly white, here. How about you guys? Any sign of those scimitar-wielding 'hordes'?

I won't barricade the door just yet. lulz

Click to expand...

Such musing conceit!

What doe white have to do with anything? I really don't want to feed anyone's Racism here.

Lets' see if I were talking to someone with next to no historical awareness, how would I proceed . . .

We of course have had attacks by hordes, but they've been wielding aircraft and bombs, often unsuccessfully. In the last century, however, a historically short period, "hordes" driven by one rabid ideology or another killed hundreds of millions of people. Three empires that come to mind with little thought were dissolved. Millions died in domestic and regional pogroms. Major cities became common targets for destruction in warfare. Nuclear weapons were introduced to the third world. And a class of Western Leftist arose that refused to examine all of that realistically and make hard choice to prevent similar disasters and suffering, and retreated into make-believe.

To the Rational man, "it happened many times before," usually validates "it can and well may happen again."

To the Modern Liberal "I really really don't want it to happen," erases the past, and turns the proddings of basic wisdom into an indecipherable foreign language.

Oftencold said:

Such musing conceit!

Click to expand...

No. Merely literate.

What doe white have to do with anything? I really don't want to feed anyone's Racism here.

Lets' see if I were talking to someone with next to no historical awareness, how would I proceed . . .

We of course have had attacks by hordes, but they've been wielding aircraft and bombs, often unsuccessfully. In the last century, however, a historically short period, "hordes" driven by one rabid ideology or another killed hundreds of millions of people. Three empires that come to mind with little thought were dissolved. Millions died in domestic and regional pogroms. Major cities became common targets for destruction in warfare. Nuclear weapons were introduced to the third world. And a class of Western Leftist arose that refused to examine all of that realistically and make hard choice to prevent similar disasters and suffering, and retreated into make-believe.

Click to expand...

So you basically advise eschewing historical reference, while demanding that historical reference be recognised as indicative. So which is it? Is this deluge of off-topic rambling really necessary? We were discussing the validity of any potential threat from Islam.

To the Rational man, "it happened many times before," usually validates "it can and well may happen again."

To the Modern Liberal "I really really don't want it to happen," erases the past, and turns the proddings of basic wisdom into an indecipherable foreign language.

Click to expand...

The rational man recognises that errant extrapolation is irresponsible and ultimately self-serving.

NoC_T said:

. . .

The rational man recognises that errant extrapolation is irresponsible and ultimately self-serving.

Click to expand...

Such men, while rational are often deceived by their wishes and cowardly aversion to hard fact, and often come to repose nameless in mass graves.

Oftencold said:

Such men, while rational are often deceived by their wishes and cowardly aversion to hard fact, and often come to repose nameless in mass graves.

Click to expand...

I'll take my chances.

I guess that, given a timeline of sufficient duration, probability will bear you out. But only as it exceeds the average lifespan, and for everyone.

Failing that, it's still extrapolation. A game that no one can lose.

NoC_T said:

I'll take my chances.

I guess that, given a timeline of sufficient duration, probability will bear you out. But only as it exceeds the average lifespan, and for everyone.

Failing that, it's still extrapolation. A game that no one can lose.

Click to expand...

Since I base my predictions in the recurrence of well established sets of events and circumstances, they more rightly should be called "interpolations."

Oftencold said:

Since I base my predictions in the recurrence of well established sets of events and circumstances, they more rightly should be called "interpolations."

Click to expand...

We can play on words, but this makes no sense. You're making predictions based on the very historical reference that you erstwhile eschewed.

This is extrapolation. 'Recurrence' here is assumption. There is no empiricism.