Quote of the day—Pawpaw

If Islam is unwilling or unable to rein in its radical adherents, they must not complain when we do so.  There will be collateral damage, as regrettable as it may be.  With the recent attacks in Europe and the United States, we may not long consider the Islamic problem to be simply one of law enforcement.  There may be a backlash, and the peace-loving Muslims may want to consider how that backlash may affect them, should they choose to ignore the problem within their religion.

They might not want to play Cowboys and Muslims.  Once the backlash begins, they may not have a chance to influence the outcome.

Pawpaw
March 23, 2016
The Problem With Islam
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

20 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Pawpaw

  1. This is a very relevant, and very good, article on the subject. http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/islam-facts-or-dreams/

    The key issue is that “peace loving” is not an accurate assessment of Islam, and the notion that only a tiny fraction of Muslims support terrorism is flat out wrong and clearly contradicted by the evidence from polls.

    • That, and then there is the fact that Islam says it’s perfectly OK and even laudable for Muslims to lie to infidels. You could have a million Muslims telling you they’re peace-moving Americans, all lying like hell while supporting jihad. That in fact is their duty according to the religion.

      This, some people say, is a first amendment, free exercise issue, but there is no such thing as a right which violates the rights of others. Therefore Islam, which demands conquest and dominance, cannot be considered protected under the first amendment.

      Islam is at war with the world and always has been. It cannot possibly live at peace with anyone else except as a tactical ruse in the process of jihad.

      • Please be careful here. You’re confusing the 1st amendment, which talks about speech and religion, with violating the rights of others. “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.” Free speech does not violate the right of others. If you make that mistake you’re heading down the same path that the campus speech police have already blazed.
        What does violate the right of others is the use of force to deny others the equal right to free speech and exercise of religion. When a group does that, it becomes unethical. But it’s that action that is a violation of our rights, not the words.

        • There are valid limits to speech. Inciting riots, slander, and libel come to mind.

          Or are you saying the First Amendment, if interpreted correctly, also protects these?

          • Neil Smith had the right answer: “Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was wrong. You have an absolute and perfect right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater — and to accept responsibility for the consequences.”
            The reason this matters: if you treat speech with bad consequences as a valid reason to limit speech — rather than as a reason to hold people accountable for all the consequences of their actions — you will unavoidably arrive at analogous conclusions for the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment analog of Neil’s statement is: you have the perfect right to bear any arms — and accept full responsibility for your use or abuse of those arms.

      • Lyle –
        To be clear, are you stating that the rights of Muslim in this country are not protected by the constitution? Am I misunderstanding what you said?

        Or are you saying that a Muslim advocating for terrorism is not protected speech, which is something completely different?

  2. This type of thinking is Islamaphobic and otherizes muslims. Your prejudices are embarrassing.

    • “This type of thinking is Islamaphobic and otherizes muslims.”

      Yes, it is, and yes, it does, but saying so doesn’t address whether or not it is accurate.

      Try reading the books of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sam Harris, then come tell us about its accuracy.

      “Your prejudices …”

      It is not prejudice. It is not “an adverse judgment or opinion formed unfairly or without knowledge of the facts”. It comes from a lifetime of reading, learning, and observing. Reality is what it even when you don’t like it.

      “… are embarrassing.”

      How it could possibly be embarrassing to you? How could you possibly know whether or not it is embarrasing to someone else?

      Go look up the dictionary definition of “prejudice” and look in a mirror. Repeat with “hypocrisy”. Then tell us if YOU are embarrassed at your own behavior.

      “The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.” – Louis Pasteur

      And THAT works both ways.

    • I am well past the age, dear heart, where I care if I embarrass anyone. If you are embarrassed, it’s your problem, and you should deal with it. Perhaps a burka would suffice? That is the plan, you know?

      • M is either:

        (a) new here, or
        (b) trying to be sarcastic (which doesn’t transmit well over the Internet. Remember your /sarc tags, M!)

    • Islam is othering itself. Cries of “Death to America” and suchlike don’t seem to bother those who are preaching to us about discrimination and “othering”. Why, prey tell, is that?

      It seems to me the voice of a coward who cannot speak out against egregious behavior to the faces of those committing it, and so must turn instead against those who pose no immediate threat. It’s the first step in being transformed, quite unwittingly in most cases, to an allegiance with most evil, violent side.

      And so we come to the matter of allegiances; to which forces or world view that you have, one way or the other, intentionally or unconsciously, aligned yourself.

      This goes along with an observation I made long ago regarding the American “peace” movement’s reaction to 20th century Soviet military expansionism as opposed to America’s half-hearted attempts to stop it—When America is fighting it, that’s “War” or “War Mongering” and when America pulls out and lets the communists rape, kill, plunder and subjugate, that apparently is “Peace”. I see the same behavior pattern now with regard to Islamic jihad.

      That in turn goes to the psychological phenomenon of the weak, or the emotionally troubled, tending to side with what they see as the strong horse, rather than sticking consistently to any discernable principles. They’ll use the appearance, the mockery, of principles to make isolated arguments, but observation of the their behavior over time tells another story. The abused spouse will stick up for the abuser, and the angry disaffected will join the toughest gang.

      I’ve just described what I now refer to as the Authoritarian System. It self-perpetuates, and to make one’s self known as an outsider to that system is to invite attack from those allied with it. Those who side with liberty, freedom, self-determination, the American Principles of Liberty and Justice for All are, in the strictest sense, apostates then. As such they are a most-hated target.

      Each side sees the other as carriers of a virulent disease, and from their own perspectives each is correct in that assessment.

      So now what? Do we fight to the death to determine which system is going to prevail or do we find ways to understand what’s being done to us by forces as old as human history?

      As far as I’m concerned that’s about all there is left to discuss.

      • “So now what? Do we fight to the death to determine which system is going to prevail or do we find ways to understand what’s being done to us by forces as old as human history?”

        One group has already made that choice. All that remains is for us to submit, acquiesce, die… or fight. Service of and subservience to evil is itself evil, and shows what side you’re on. Claims of coercion only go so far; if “radical” Islam is truly the tiny minority, the “peaceful majority” ought to have little trouble stamping it out, or at least marginalizing it.

      • The term for one that would rather kill a friend because it is safe, than fight an enemy because it is not, is coward.

      • Where can I get a t-shirt with “Death to America” written in Arabic with a big red “Return to Sender” stamped over it?

        Even better, I want that engraved on an AR-10 receiver. White fill in the Arabic, red fill in the stamp.

        It’ll go nicely with my MHI logo’ed AR-15 receiver with safety settings of “Safe”, “Wolf” and “Werewolf” that Wally did for me.

        • The closest thing I can think of was the Arabic phrase ‘lan astaslem’. Which translates to ‘I will not surrender’ or ‘I will not submit’.

          Oriana Fallaci popularized the phrase originally, and Michelle Malkin has consistently used it.

    • Wait-a-damned-minute… Crown Prince Abdullah of Jordan appeared as a guest actor on Star Trek: Voyager in the episode “Investigations”.

      Although, if you want to take it as prophecy, perhaps the only Muslims that survive to Star Trek time are those advancing democratic principles (slowly), women’s rights and interfaith harmony.

      • Two points:
        First, the joke was _not_ about the nationality/religion/race of actors nationality/religion/race — it was about that of the characters. In a story that takes place in the future.

        Second: I did not express a desire that it be taken as prophecy. My point was that at some future date it could be seen as prophecy if current events continue in a fashion that provokes (rightly or wrongly) a permanent terminal solution.

        Then again, it could be seen as prophecy it a positive light: rationality wins out and Islam as a religion becomes something only read about in history books — written and read by the descendants of those that currently follow Islam.

Comments are closed.