The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
NYT Wields Occam's Butterknife on ISIS Recruits in America
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

What, oh, what could be the subtle factors driving residents of the U.S. to enlist in ISIS? The New York Times offers a study of the diverse factors behind would-be ISIS terrorists:

What the Americans Drawn to ISIS Had in Common
By KAREN YOURISH and JASMINE C. LEE JULY 6, 2016

The nearly 100 United States residents accused of trying to help the Islamic State share certain characteristics that may have made them more susceptible to radicalization, according to a report from the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.

– U.S. citizens [vs.] Permanent residents, refugees or other …

– At least a quarter of them expressed a desire for martyrdom. …

– Many were strongly influenced by al-Baghdadi or al-Awlaki. …

– Many lived with their parents, some of whom tried to intervene. …

– Many used social media to become involved with the Islamic State. …

– Some of them sought links to ISIS through marriage. …

On the other hand, what percentage of the Islamic State’s recruits were Islamic just doesn’t seem to come up. Why would you ask about that? What are you? An Islamophobe?

 
Hide 96 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. People have gone to much greater lengths to avoid propagating hate facts:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/german-politician-admits-lying-about-ethnicity-of-sex-attackers/

    “German politician admits lying about ethnicity of sex attackers to avoid fuelling racism ”

    “She said she was forced to perform a sex act on her attackers, and immediately reported the sexual assault to the police.

    But she did not tell them that the men were speaking Arabic and Farsi”

    • Replies: @22pp22
    Selin Goren is a Muslim. She was raped by her correligionists, but wanted people to think Germans had done it. Logically she should be prosecuted for racism.
    , @Yak-15
    They were probably only speaking Arabic. Arabic and Farsi? Those people people do not get along.
  2. There’s a wrong assumption in the title of the article. I wonder how many ‘Americans’ drawn to ISIS think of themselves as such?

  3. I always wondered why we take such pains to make sure they cannot go off and fight. If we really love them, set them free…

    • Replies: @415 reasons
    Free of this mortal coil
  4. Kind of amusing that there are probably over a hundred bureaucrats assigned to figure out these 100 misfits.

    The ISIS criteria sounds like they recycled the spree killer criteria.

  5. Of course America’s “War on Terror” has killed over 1.3 million Muslims over the last 15 years. Of those deaths, about 80% occurred in Iraq. It’s not exactly clear why we attacked Iraq or what we hoped to accomplish, but our war seems to have accidentally killed a million Iraqis.

    Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS.

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

    • Agree: Triumph104
    • Replies: @Josh
    http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?players=1003311,1009178,1009179

    Did we attaq Iraq cuz this? Serious question, though I ask it in a profoundly stupid way.
    , @guest
    Yes, but the issue is why Americans care enough to join in the fight, at least symbolically. We don't have Iraqi nationals shooting up gay discos, do we? Something about the people over here who think as if they're poor, oppressed Iraqis must unite them. What could it possibly be?
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Right! That explains the murderous rampages in France and Belgium too! And the rapes in Germany! And the terror attacks in Bali! And the Philippines and Malaysia and Nigeria and everywhere else the Islamic world is next to anything else.

    Yep, Johnny, you are a one-eyed rocket scientist in the land of single-celled amoeba.
    , @bomag
    Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS.

    So, if you are mad about Iraqis killing each other after the US destabilized your country, you should join a group that... kills more Iraqis.
    , @Almost Missouri
    "Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS."

    Yeah, 'cuz they want to kill Iraqis too.

    http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/after-baghdad-attacks-many-ask-where-is-the-global-outpouring-of-grief-20160706-gpzrx4.html
    , @Anonymous Nephew
    The US troops and USAF didn't kill with fire 1.3m Iraqis/Libyans/Syrians/Afghans AFAIK.

    It was the power vacuums which they created which, especially in Iraq and Libya, caused civil war and created countries which were actually worse than the brutal dictatorships they replaced. Quite a (negative) achievement.

    A US spokesperson was on BBC radio this morning pointing out post-Chilcot that the US couldn't be blamed if people took a power drill and started drilling their neighbour's head to kill and torture them. But if they deliberately remove the force which had previously restrained Iraqis from such actions ...

    , @biz
    Yes, definitely.

    Anger at the United States explains why periodically the Thai Muslim minority decides to behead a dozen or more Thai Buddhist monks and leave them on the side of the road as a statement. Against America of course.

    It explains why in Nigeria Boko Haram kidnaps, rapes, and murders other Nigerians.

    It explains why in Kenya Al Shabab took over that mall and intentionally killed all of the non-Muslim Kenyans.

    It explains why ISIS just killed 100+ Iraqis on the streets of Baghdad, mostly other Muslims.

    It explains why ISIS detonated a bomb in a Shia mosque in Yemen while those Shia were in mid "Death to America" chant. Nothing communicates legitimate grievances (tm) against America like blowing up other people voicing their legitimate grievances against America.

    It definitely explains all of the Muslim terrorist atrocities before the war on terror even started (the '93 World Trade Center Bombing, for example)

    And anger at Americas War on Terror definitely explains all of the Muslim atrocities before the United States even existed, such as the kidnapping and enslavement of 50 million Europeans, boiling alive the Sikh gurus in oil, etc.

    Yep, all explained.
    , @Rob McX
    For the most part I agree, and can't understand the negative reaction to your comment. For Iraq's 33m people, the only chance of a normal life lay in the continuation of Saddam's Ba'athist regime. It was a strong, unbending, authoritarian government that mostly succeeded in keeping the country's various ethnic and religious factions from slaughtering each other. The American invasion deprived them of that and unleashed a bloodbath that will continue until another Saddam takes over. The fact that it's mostly Iraqis killing each other is no consolation to the innocent victims.
  6. Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS.

    There is truth to much of what you write. The islamic world and the Christian world have been in conflict for over one thousand years. Given that reality why would any sane Western leader allow for the mass immigration of muslims into their nations?

    I think Steve’s posts are meant to flush out this point. Whether we have caused unnecessary deaths or not, there is no reason to allow the mass immigration of muslims into the US.

    • Replies: @anon
    Whether we have caused unnecessary deaths or not, there is no reason to allow the mass immigration of muslims into the US.

    Actually, if we've caused unnecessary deaths, that seems like all the more reason not to let them come here. How much sense does it make to invite people into your country, if you know they actually have a legitimate reason to hate you?

    I say this to people, and some of them honestly seem shocked. As though they're more concerned with "fairness" than they are with having less conflict in their own country. It's really strange to me.
  7. Hey! Watch out Mr. Sailer! No noticing!

    The justice department will press charges on you for hatefacts crime.

    And the FBI will suck up all of your emails and everything.

    And you will be signed up for re-education seminars or something.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "And the FBI will suck up all of your emails and everything."
     
    No worries ... The FBI just determined there can be no crimes to be found in e-mails. That finding of fact goes for everyone, right?
  8. @JohnnyWalker123
    Of course America's "War on Terror" has killed over 1.3 million Muslims over the last 15 years. Of those deaths, about 80% occurred in Iraq. It's not exactly clear why we attacked Iraq or what we hoped to accomplish, but our war seems to have accidentally killed a million Iraqis.

    Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS.

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

    http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?players=1003311,1009178,1009179

    Did we attaq Iraq cuz this? Serious question, though I ask it in a profoundly stupid way.

  9. I notice a lack of WASP last names among these so-called “Americans” who pledge allegiance to ISIS. They tend to have either Somali or Arabic last names. But it would be considered racist to point this out to The New York Times.

  10. @JohnnyWalker123
    Of course America's "War on Terror" has killed over 1.3 million Muslims over the last 15 years. Of those deaths, about 80% occurred in Iraq. It's not exactly clear why we attacked Iraq or what we hoped to accomplish, but our war seems to have accidentally killed a million Iraqis.

    Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS.

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

    Yes, but the issue is why Americans care enough to join in the fight, at least symbolically. We don’t have Iraqi nationals shooting up gay discos, do we? Something about the people over here who think as if they’re poor, oppressed Iraqis must unite them. What could it possibly be?

  11. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @iSteveFan

    Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS.
     
    There is truth to much of what you write. The islamic world and the Christian world have been in conflict for over one thousand years. Given that reality why would any sane Western leader allow for the mass immigration of muslims into their nations?

    I think Steve's posts are meant to flush out this point. Whether we have caused unnecessary deaths or not, there is no reason to allow the mass immigration of muslims into the US.

    Whether we have caused unnecessary deaths or not, there is no reason to allow the mass immigration of muslims into the US.

    Actually, if we’ve caused unnecessary deaths, that seems like all the more reason not to let them come here. How much sense does it make to invite people into your country, if you know they actually have a legitimate reason to hate you?

    I say this to people, and some of them honestly seem shocked. As though they’re more concerned with “fairness” than they are with having less conflict in their own country. It’s really strange to me.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    I'm "shocked" by your attitude that not being concerned with fairness is noble.

    [There are several layers of craziness here.]
  12. ISIS exists because nothing but bloody, violent Islam seems to work or be attractive to Muslims. Muslims have tried for several centuries beginning long before Ataturk to reform and become Westernized, and they just could not do it. They could not spread literacy among their peoples, put religion in a box to create secular society, improve the status of women, get rid of polygamy, or tribalism, create a nationalism (Exhibit A: Iraq) that transcended tribalism and sectarianism and had elites roughly in the same zip code if not boat as the people.

    Most important of all, Muslims could not and have not industrialized. That is, create a society where men go off to a factory and make things, women do clerical work or other things, all depending on universal literacy among men and women, rule of law, restraining big man-ism, and middle class values which at its height put men on the moon and created the atomic bomb, the jet engine, the rocket, the computer, the transistor, the integrated circuit board, the CD, etc. The Japanese and Koreans and (somewhat) the Chinese could do this — but not Muslims.

    All elements of secular nationalism like Nasserism failed because Muslims could not create an industrial society where say, Israel and even Italy could. So having tried this Muslims have gone back to MOAR ISLAM! and at least that satisfies them emotionally. There is a non-trivial, actually fairly large portion of Muslim men who feel quite happy slaughtering people. Just for the sake of slaughter. That sort of person was rewarded and has been rewarded in Muslim lands just as European kings have been sorting them out (largely by the gallows) for centuries to keep the King’s Peace to maximize the King’s treasury. [Peasants can produce money after all for the King if they are constantly beset by bandits.]

    I suppose hypothetically if the Muslim lands had say, a WWI style war among them that lasted say, 20 years or more, killing the most slaughter-thirsty and giving them a good, not the current, taste of modern warfare at its most unrestricted: shelling, trenches, barbed wire, machine guns, poison gas, misery and sickness for years, well then hypothetically the violence would fade out of Islam in sheer sickness at industrial level slaughter. But that is unlikely for a whole host of reasons. The death toll in Iraq was mostly tit-for-tat bombings and small scale slaughters by Iraqis of Iraqis. It wasn’t anything like the Somme, for example. Where over six months the British lost 450,000 men or more dead, let alone the Germans or French.

    Right now violent jihadi slaughter plays out very well to Muslim men in places like Bangladesh (where the US involvement has been aid money basically) and the mean streets of Orlando FLA, where the US bombs Muslims nightly. Oh wait … What, an Omar Mateen will go to work every day and be an ordinary man? For many Muslims that’s simply not in the cards — its like asking a wild animal to be tame. Not going to happen. Killing people for Jihad is far more attractive to many Muslim men than anything the West or Muslim societies for that matter have on offer.

  13. Whether we have caused unnecessary deaths or not, there is no reason to allow the mass immigration of muslims into the US.

    Sure. Even without the terrorism issue, I can think of many reasons not to want Muslims in our country. As group, they’re unassimilable, backward, and difficult to get along with. Many European countries have learned that the hard way. I most certainly don’t want Muslims in my country.

    However, our “War on Terror” seems to have indiscriminately slaughtered a huge number of Muslim civilians, for no particular reason. I think if China invaded America and accidentally killed 1 million Americans, Americans would be slightly annoyed. It wouldn’t surprise me if some American troops overseas journeyed back home to fight back against Chinese forces.

    Fareed Zakaria had a special called “Why they hate us” on CNN. He seemed to be completely oblivious to all the Muslim deaths from post-2001 wars. He’s not alone. Most Americans, especially our leaders, seem totally oblivious to this.

    One final point. You see a lot of people here (such as Peter Frost) talking about the atrocities of Muslim immigrants (crime, sexual violence, Rotherham grooming, terrorism). While I see those as legitimate issues, I noticed there’s little (if any) discussion here on those 1.3 million deaths. The average person here seems not to lose much sleep over the mass slaughter their government is committing overseas. I’ve actually seen more discussion here on Ta Nehisi Coates than this issue.

    I think if there were a little more self-awareness on this topic, a lot of problems could’ve been avoided. If Muslim immigration were stopped (or even reversed), that would be very helpful too.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "I think if China invaded America and accidentally killed 1 million Americans, Americans would be slightly annoyed."
     
    Well, it depends which million. A million liberals? Me 'n' the Chinese be hi-fivin' each other over the Moo-Shu!

    But seriously, Johnny, the thing is, most of those 1.3 million Iraqis (assuming the figure is accurate) were not killed by Westerners. They were killed by other Arabs, other Muslims. And Arabs and Muslims have been killing each other in large numbers for a long time. To borrow Obama's favorite expression, "it's who they are". Outsiders, such as Westerners, have a hard time keeping up, much less knowing where to lay sympathy and antipathy. Arabs and Muslims do not have this problem. That's why being Arab or Muslim is the missing link that the NY Times just can't seem to find.

    , @Rb
    Accidentaly? We created a civil-Religious war. Anyone with half a brain could have predicted the outcome.
    , @Kyle a
    You obviously haven't been a reader of steves work very long or your just a plain ol ignoramus. The premise of about all of his articles is " invade the world, invite the world". It's about all we talk about here. No we don't give a shit about Muslims. Perhaps a little "self awareness on your part is in order. Were you even alive when Jimmy Carter was president?
    , @AnotherDad

    I think if China invaded America and accidentally killed 1 million Americans, Americans would be slightly annoyed. ...

    ... While I see those as legitimate issues, I noticed there’s little (if any) discussion here on those 1.3 million deaths. The average person here seems not to lose much sleep over the mass slaughter their government is committing overseas.
     
    Johnny, now you've moved from the implied fuzzy lie, to the direct lie.

    The US did *not* kill anything near 1.3 million muslims, or cause them to be killed. If the US--wisely or un--ousts some dictator it does not "kill" when some Sunni Muslim whackos blow up the mosque of Shia Muslims or blow up a crowded market place. (Actually even all those deaths do not get you anywhere 1.3 million, those estimates are phonied up by "activists"--kids not born who "should have been born", old people died of the flu "who would have had better medical care" that sort of nonsense. The Iraq war actual body count is an order of magnitude less.)

    The US *did* kill millions of Germans and Japanese bombing their cities--taking the war directly against their civilian populations. Those are real killings we are responsible for and you put them in the moral\political hopper with the goal of winning the war, winning it quickly, military value of disrupting German\Japanese industry and demoralizing their civilian populations. And yet having very bloodily ousted German and Japanese dictatorships, Germans and Japanese were able to quickly form orderly productive societies--even in the representative government form we asked--and form amiable relations with us.

    That the Arabs can not form orderly, cooperative, pleasant, prosperous societies--even given the US booting their dictator(s), holding elections, providing support for their government--is ... the Arabs' fault! No one else's. Not the United States', not mine, not even George W. Bush's.

    Of course, realization that they do not possess that ability--through some combination of insufficient, IQ, cooperation, conscientiousness; tribalism and Islam--should have given us additional pause in try to "fix" anything with those folks at all. And should do more than give us pause, but should be a giant flashing red light stopping us from letting any of them come into the West.

    But Arabs blowing each other apart does not "US killing" or "mass slaughter their government is committing" make.
  14. @JohnnyWalker123
    Of course America's "War on Terror" has killed over 1.3 million Muslims over the last 15 years. Of those deaths, about 80% occurred in Iraq. It's not exactly clear why we attacked Iraq or what we hoped to accomplish, but our war seems to have accidentally killed a million Iraqis.

    Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS.

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

    Right! That explains the murderous rampages in France and Belgium too! And the rapes in Germany! And the terror attacks in Bali! And the Philippines and Malaysia and Nigeria and everywhere else the Islamic world is next to anything else.

    Yep, Johnny, you are a one-eyed rocket scientist in the land of single-celled amoeba.

    • Agree: Alec Leamas
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    France was involved in the military strikes against Colonel Gaddaffi. Since then, Libya has collapsed into complete chaos. France has also been extensively involved in Syria.

    Brussels is the capital of the European Union, which has generally been supportive of US military involvement in the Middle East.

    The Bali terror attacks were aimed at Australian tourists. Australia sent troops to Iraq back in 2003.

    There's almost a pattern here.

    By the way, is the US-led Iraq War any more rational or humane than any of these terrorist attacks?

    It seems to me that if you see a barking dog who's foaming at the mouth, you don't randomly start throwing rocks at it. If that dog bites you, maybe you shouldn't be surprised.
  15. OT but Steve if you haven’t seen this PBS documentary about the attempts to reform the Newark NJ PD you really should watch it.

    It demonstrates why any attempt to reduce the number of police shootings winds up increasing murder rates: NYPD style reform that uses intelligence and data analysis is impossible strictly due to the lack of intelligence of all the people involved in the decision making. Which in this case includes Amiri Baraka’s son who is the mayor. There’s a scene at the intelligence command center for the police department where the police commissioner and the head of command center show Baraka how they relay all information by hand on index cards because all the computers are broken or shut down and no one knows how to use them anyways.

    Given that the police can’t work smarter, the only way to for them to shoot less people is to confront less of the armed people on the street. Less aggressive policing, more guns on the street, more murders, pretty simple.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    415 Reasons, Baltimore's police department is down 13% since last year, that is uniformed officers, did not see a number for detectives, inspectors etc. The city's murder rate is approaching record numbers again. Perfect opportunity for DOJ to "assist" their police force.
  16. @JohnnyWalker123
    Of course America's "War on Terror" has killed over 1.3 million Muslims over the last 15 years. Of those deaths, about 80% occurred in Iraq. It's not exactly clear why we attacked Iraq or what we hoped to accomplish, but our war seems to have accidentally killed a million Iraqis.

    Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS.

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

    Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS.

    So, if you are mad about Iraqis killing each other after the US destabilized your country, you should join a group that… kills more Iraqis.

    • Agree: NickG
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    The US-supported Iraqi government is dominated by Shiites, who seem to have killed and displaced large numbers of Sunnis. The Iraqi Sunnis embraced ISIS as a way to fight back and reassert their dominance. The foreign fighters coming to Iraq are predominately Sunni Arabs, who are waging war to support their co-religionists.

    Sunnis and Shiites regard one another as infidels. So assuming you're a fundamentalist Muslim, joining a Sunni or Shiite holy war might make sense.

    By the way, I never said that Muslims were particularly smart or reasonable people. My point was that killing 1+ million Muslims (for no particular reason) isn't a very good strategy if you want to win their hearts and minds. It's the type of thing that provokes violence.
  17. @JohnnyWalker123
    Of course America's "War on Terror" has killed over 1.3 million Muslims over the last 15 years. Of those deaths, about 80% occurred in Iraq. It's not exactly clear why we attacked Iraq or what we hoped to accomplish, but our war seems to have accidentally killed a million Iraqis.

    Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS.

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

    “Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS.”

    Yeah, ‘cuz they want to kill Iraqis too.

    http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/after-baghdad-attacks-many-ask-where-is-the-global-outpouring-of-grief-20160706-gpzrx4.html

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Sunnis and Shiites have been ethnically cleansing one another since 2003 Iraq War ended. Interestingly, before that, they got along okay.

    Let's say China invaded America and killed a huge number of civilians. Let's say a civil war erupted between blacks and whites. Let's say the Chinese put blacks in charge of the government, which then persecuted and killed many whites. Then white resistance fighters retaliated by doing bombings in predominately black areas of Washington DC.

    Would you mourn the deaths of black civilians? I bet not.
    Would you perhaps support the white resistance fighters? Most likely yes.

    By the way, the above isn't a completely hypothetical situation. In the Reconstruction era South, blacks were placed in charge of the new government. The new government was considered oppressive towards Southern whites, who retaliated by joining the KKK in huge numbers and committing large numbers of terrorist attacks. Through terrorism, they regained control of their society.

    War, death, and dispossession easily can radicalize any ethnic group. Including whites. If you want to avoid creating groups like the KKK or ISIS, it's a good idea not to destroy a society. Especially (as was the case in Iraq) if there was no apparent reason to the start the war.
  18. @bomag
    Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS.

    So, if you are mad about Iraqis killing each other after the US destabilized your country, you should join a group that... kills more Iraqis.

    The US-supported Iraqi government is dominated by Shiites, who seem to have killed and displaced large numbers of Sunnis. The Iraqi Sunnis embraced ISIS as a way to fight back and reassert their dominance. The foreign fighters coming to Iraq are predominately Sunni Arabs, who are waging war to support their co-religionists.

    Sunnis and Shiites regard one another as infidels. So assuming you’re a fundamentalist Muslim, joining a Sunni or Shiite holy war might make sense.

    By the way, I never said that Muslims were particularly smart or reasonable people. My point was that killing 1+ million Muslims (for no particular reason) isn’t a very good strategy if you want to win their hearts and minds. It’s the type of thing that provokes violence.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Johnny, You state your position, but I don't think we can "win their hearts and minds." Their differences are not like the differences between Catholics, Methodists, Protestants, this is tribal hatred which is unknown in the USA. I shudder when I think that somewhere one of these religious fanatics is trying to go nuclear, with every intention of using it in the name of Allah.
  19. @JohnnyWalker123

    Whether we have caused unnecessary deaths or not, there is no reason to allow the mass immigration of muslims into the US.
     
    Sure. Even without the terrorism issue, I can think of many reasons not to want Muslims in our country. As group, they're unassimilable, backward, and difficult to get along with. Many European countries have learned that the hard way. I most certainly don't want Muslims in my country.

    However, our "War on Terror" seems to have indiscriminately slaughtered a huge number of Muslim civilians, for no particular reason. I think if China invaded America and accidentally killed 1 million Americans, Americans would be slightly annoyed. It wouldn't surprise me if some American troops overseas journeyed back home to fight back against Chinese forces.

    Fareed Zakaria had a special called "Why they hate us" on CNN. He seemed to be completely oblivious to all the Muslim deaths from post-2001 wars. He's not alone. Most Americans, especially our leaders, seem totally oblivious to this.

    One final point. You see a lot of people here (such as Peter Frost) talking about the atrocities of Muslim immigrants (crime, sexual violence, Rotherham grooming, terrorism). While I see those as legitimate issues, I noticed there's little (if any) discussion here on those 1.3 million deaths. The average person here seems not to lose much sleep over the mass slaughter their government is committing overseas. I've actually seen more discussion here on Ta Nehisi Coates than this issue.

    I think if there were a little more self-awareness on this topic, a lot of problems could've been avoided. If Muslim immigration were stopped (or even reversed), that would be very helpful too.

    “I think if China invaded America and accidentally killed 1 million Americans, Americans would be slightly annoyed.”

    Well, it depends which million. A million liberals? Me ‘n’ the Chinese be hi-fivin’ each other over the Moo-Shu!

    But seriously, Johnny, the thing is, most of those 1.3 million Iraqis (assuming the figure is accurate) were not killed by Westerners. They were killed by other Arabs, other Muslims. And Arabs and Muslims have been killing each other in large numbers for a long time. To borrow Obama’s favorite expression, “it’s who they are”. Outsiders, such as Westerners, have a hard time keeping up, much less knowing where to lay sympathy and antipathy. Arabs and Muslims do not have this problem. That’s why being Arab or Muslim is the missing link that the NY Times just can’t seem to find.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Let's say the Chinese overthrew the American government due to its historical racism against blacks. Then installed black leaders into power and gave them lots of guns . Then those black leaders ethnically cleansed whites and killed lots of them. Then whites retaliates and killed huge numbers of blacks. As this was happening, Chinese soldiers also killed lots of whites. Some of those whites were fighters, but many were just random civilians.

    The Chinese could respond to that by pointing out Americans are racist, gun-crazy, and bizarre. It's not really their fault that any of that happened. If they had to kill Americans, Americans deserved it.

    Then Chinese produced a film called "Chinese Sniper." The film glorified a Chinese soldier who shot lots of white American resistance fighters. Would you like the film?

    Arabs and Muslims may be backward, violent, and oppressive. It doesn't change the fact that our government totally destroyed a functioning country and turned it into hell.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    I'd also add that prior to the 2003 Iraq War, Sunnis and Shiites definitely were not killing each other in large numbers. They weren't killing each other at all.

    Westerners don't need to keep or know who to sympathize with. They just need to refrain from overthrowing regimes for no reason.

    By the way, the US talks of fighting terrorism. Yet it destroys anti-terrorist regimes (such as Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad) while maintaining a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia, which has been promoting Islamic radicalism for decades.
  20. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Right! That explains the murderous rampages in France and Belgium too! And the rapes in Germany! And the terror attacks in Bali! And the Philippines and Malaysia and Nigeria and everywhere else the Islamic world is next to anything else.

    Yep, Johnny, you are a one-eyed rocket scientist in the land of single-celled amoeba.

    France was involved in the military strikes against Colonel Gaddaffi. Since then, Libya has collapsed into complete chaos. France has also been extensively involved in Syria.

    Brussels is the capital of the European Union, which has generally been supportive of US military involvement in the Middle East.

    The Bali terror attacks were aimed at Australian tourists. Australia sent troops to Iraq back in 2003.

    There’s almost a pattern here.

    By the way, is the US-led Iraq War any more rational or humane than any of these terrorist attacks?

    It seems to me that if you see a barking dog who’s foaming at the mouth, you don’t randomly start throwing rocks at it. If that dog bites you, maybe you shouldn’t be surprised.

    • Replies: @Kyle a
    Actually the dog was barking for the last thousand years. And again I ask, where you alive during the Carter administration?
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Oh come on Johnny. There is nothing we can do about the Is-lamb-ick world's hatred. Their insistence on universal acquiescence to Moose Limb primitivism is absurd. The rational approach would be to zero out their immigration, and insist that those here either eat an Iowa pork chop every week or emigrate to one of the 57 Moose Limb states.

    They can either isolate their polities from modernity and continue their culture, or settle for the ignominious defeat we are morally obligated to inflict upon them.

    There is no retrofitting the 21st century into a 7th century sensibility. And blaming us is what the loons on the Left do.

    Repent brother. The hour is late, and we are in a 2-front death struggle with the primitivism of the Muslims and the primitivism of the Left.

    Either we win, or (if I am alive) I'll greet you in the reeducation camps.
  21. @Almost Missouri
    "Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS."

    Yeah, 'cuz they want to kill Iraqis too.

    http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/after-baghdad-attacks-many-ask-where-is-the-global-outpouring-of-grief-20160706-gpzrx4.html

    Sunnis and Shiites have been ethnically cleansing one another since 2003 Iraq War ended. Interestingly, before that, they got along okay.

    Let’s say China invaded America and killed a huge number of civilians. Let’s say a civil war erupted between blacks and whites. Let’s say the Chinese put blacks in charge of the government, which then persecuted and killed many whites. Then white resistance fighters retaliated by doing bombings in predominately black areas of Washington DC.

    Would you mourn the deaths of black civilians? I bet not.
    Would you perhaps support the white resistance fighters? Most likely yes.

    By the way, the above isn’t a completely hypothetical situation. In the Reconstruction era South, blacks were placed in charge of the new government. The new government was considered oppressive towards Southern whites, who retaliated by joining the KKK in huge numbers and committing large numbers of terrorist attacks. Through terrorism, they regained control of their society.

    War, death, and dispossession easily can radicalize any ethnic group. Including whites. If you want to avoid creating groups like the KKK or ISIS, it’s a good idea not to destroy a society. Especially (as was the case in Iraq) if there was no apparent reason to the start the war.

    • Replies: @rod1963
    No Sunni and Shia don't get along and if forced to mix will kill each other. This is a historical fact. This is why Iraq is segregated along ethnic and religious lines. Saddam kept them from murdering each other with a brutal police force. Afghanistan is also broken up along ethnic and sectarian lines and killing one another is their favorite pastime. Syria was similarly segregated and run by a religious/secular minority.

    The only reason why Iran hasn't invaded Iraq is because they already made Southern Iraq a Persian province. Iraq now a is a rump state composed of a crippled Sunni middle.

    And thanks for neglecting the religious aspect that drives it all. Heaven forbid we mention the Koran commands to wage jihad until the entire world is Islamic or how it's a express train to heaven for believers or it's viewing of unbelievers as so much worthless scum with no value whatsoever except as a natural resource.

    I just wonder how this aspect can be so neglected when it so heavily factors into Islam terrorism.
    , @NickG

    Sunnis and Shiites have been ethnically cleansing one another since 2003 Iraq War ended. Interestingly, before that, they got along okay
     
    Not even close. Just for starters there was the 1980-1988 Iran Iraq war.
    , @anonymous

    War, death, and dispossession easily can radicalize any ethnic group.
     
    You're getting a lot of flack because most people prefer to ignore the culpability of the US in all this and act as though it all sprouted out of the ground spontaneously. There's a reason for what's been going on as you've been trying to point out. Fact: Most Americans care nothing about millions of people being killed and impoverished thousands of miles away by the actions of their government as long as they themselves are not discomfited and can play with their electronic gadgets. They want the mirror on the wall to tell them they're the fairest of them all.
  22. thankfully the original report from fordham law tells us how many of them were muslim: all but one:

    Case by Case – ISIS Prosecutions in the United States

    you really gotta wonder if that one is the guy named joshua goldberg (pg. 11 of report)!

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    As it happens, you can look up Joshua Goldberg's background. He wasn't really an ISIS supporter. He posed as an ISIS supporter as well as as a white supremacist. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and judged incompetent to stand trial.

    We can laugh at the idea of ISIS accepting a frail, bespectacled "Joshua Goldberg" into its ranks of fighters (to make Jihadi Joshua videos?), but there are other non-Muslim names on the list. I wouldn't expect any of them to convert any more than one of Da Joos!
    , @Formerly CARealist
    I tried skimming the Fordham report and didn't see one of the pie charts indicating their religion. So I re-read from the beginning and lo and behold, there was one sentence saying all were Muslim but one at the time of arrest. Interesting. I wonder if that particular fact would have been too embarrassing to put into a pie chart.
  23. Who needs ISIS over there when we’re forced to submit to paying for our Dear Rulers to Import MORE and MORE Islam: http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/muslim-refugees-threaten-minnesota-community-with-rape/#!

  24. TGGP says: • Website

    To be fair to the MSM, the fact that the Islamic State derives its base of support from believers in Islam is sufficiently obvious one does not need to point it out. Although there was a push by some to refer to them as “Daesh” (which apparently means the same thing) in order to deprive them of the use of the term “islamic” in western mindspace.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    I think Daesh is being promoted to take them down a peg with regard to the use of the word "state". That was the dangerous word for the Western mindspace, because it legitimizes their aspiration to statehood. Notice how the Palestinians started using the words authority, congress etc to refer to hitherto inexistent institutions for an inexistent state. To assume legitimacy and create the trappings of statehood. Fake it till you make it. It's state building 101.
  25. @Almost Missouri

    "I think if China invaded America and accidentally killed 1 million Americans, Americans would be slightly annoyed."
     
    Well, it depends which million. A million liberals? Me 'n' the Chinese be hi-fivin' each other over the Moo-Shu!

    But seriously, Johnny, the thing is, most of those 1.3 million Iraqis (assuming the figure is accurate) were not killed by Westerners. They were killed by other Arabs, other Muslims. And Arabs and Muslims have been killing each other in large numbers for a long time. To borrow Obama's favorite expression, "it's who they are". Outsiders, such as Westerners, have a hard time keeping up, much less knowing where to lay sympathy and antipathy. Arabs and Muslims do not have this problem. That's why being Arab or Muslim is the missing link that the NY Times just can't seem to find.

    Let’s say the Chinese overthrew the American government due to its historical racism against blacks. Then installed black leaders into power and gave them lots of guns . Then those black leaders ethnically cleansed whites and killed lots of them. Then whites retaliates and killed huge numbers of blacks. As this was happening, Chinese soldiers also killed lots of whites. Some of those whites were fighters, but many were just random civilians.

    The Chinese could respond to that by pointing out Americans are racist, gun-crazy, and bizarre. It’s not really their fault that any of that happened. If they had to kill Americans, Americans deserved it.

    Then Chinese produced a film called “Chinese Sniper.” The film glorified a Chinese soldier who shot lots of white American resistance fighters. Would you like the film?

    Arabs and Muslims may be backward, violent, and oppressive. It doesn’t change the fact that our government totally destroyed a functioning country and turned it into hell.

    • Replies: @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    Did you see the Red Dawn remake? The main American rebel leader (Chris Hemsworth) has some "inspirational" lines about resisting foreign occupation of one's homeland... His military background to lead the rebellion? He was a veteran of the Iraqi war...
    , @IHTG
    Here's another analogy. Let's say you stuck your hand into a hornet's nest. Pretty dumb of you, right? You're still not gonna feel sorry about any dead hornets, though.

    Quit it with the leftist-style rhetoric. It's not helpful and it's not persuasive. Americans want to leave that past behind, they don't want to be guilt-tripped about it.

    , @Almost Missouri
    Sheesh, movie reviews now? I'm not really interested in who likes what movie. Your hypothetical metaphor would be more exact if the Chinese overthrew a US minority black government partly on the grounds that it had been oppressing the white majority but really because it had been making reckless threats against the Chinese. In the new democratic majority regime, pre-existing but widely ignored black-white conflict continues but is now documented by outside groups with their own divergent agendas.

    "our government totally destroyed a functioning country and turned it into hell."
     
    You might ask some some Iraqi Shia or Kurds whether the country was really "totally functioning" and is now "hell". Even the Iraqi Sunni were not necessarily happy outside of Saddam's Tikriti clans.

    You seem to believe that no matter what happens, only the white man has moral agency. Why do you deny free will to others? Are you a racist?
    , @Alec Leamas
    Your analogy is not apt. You'd have to include whites traveling from other nations committing mass acts of terrorism, bombing, etc. against native whites for not being sufficiently committed to the white cause.
  26. @Almost Missouri

    "I think if China invaded America and accidentally killed 1 million Americans, Americans would be slightly annoyed."
     
    Well, it depends which million. A million liberals? Me 'n' the Chinese be hi-fivin' each other over the Moo-Shu!

    But seriously, Johnny, the thing is, most of those 1.3 million Iraqis (assuming the figure is accurate) were not killed by Westerners. They were killed by other Arabs, other Muslims. And Arabs and Muslims have been killing each other in large numbers for a long time. To borrow Obama's favorite expression, "it's who they are". Outsiders, such as Westerners, have a hard time keeping up, much less knowing where to lay sympathy and antipathy. Arabs and Muslims do not have this problem. That's why being Arab or Muslim is the missing link that the NY Times just can't seem to find.

    I’d also add that prior to the 2003 Iraq War, Sunnis and Shiites definitely were not killing each other in large numbers. They weren’t killing each other at all.

    Westerners don’t need to keep or know who to sympathize with. They just need to refrain from overthrowing regimes for no reason.

    By the way, the US talks of fighting terrorism. Yet it destroys anti-terrorist regimes (such as Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad) while maintaining a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia, which has been promoting Islamic radicalism for decades.

    • Replies: @Jeffersonian
    You apparently missed the 1980s...
    , @This Is Our Home
    Since about 800AD, they have been killing each other. The First Crusade was successful basically because the Shia were happy that we were smashing up the Sunni and let it win. As for modern times, have you heard of Lebanon or the Iran v Iraq war? Are you totally ignorant of all events prior to 2003?
    , @Nico

    I’d also add that prior to the 2003 Iraq War, Sunnis and Shiites definitely were not killing each other in large numbers. They weren’t killing each other at all.
     
    Could you send me a postcard from La-La Land, please? Sounds like a nice place you're at.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Well, you're about half right. Prior to 2003, Shia weren't killing many Sunni, but Sunni were killing plenty of Shia (and Sunni Kurds). After 2003, the Shia and Kurds were in a much better position to fight back. And they did.

    I actually agree with you that destroying the Assad regime in Syria was a huge mistake. All the clichéd arguments made against the Iraq invasion are actually true about Syria, yet strangely no one wants to use those arguments where they actually apply, possibly because the Syrian intervention was cooked up by a mulatto and coven of incompetent women, so it would be bigoted to point out their stupidity.
  27. @JohnnyWalker123
    Sunnis and Shiites have been ethnically cleansing one another since 2003 Iraq War ended. Interestingly, before that, they got along okay.

    Let's say China invaded America and killed a huge number of civilians. Let's say a civil war erupted between blacks and whites. Let's say the Chinese put blacks in charge of the government, which then persecuted and killed many whites. Then white resistance fighters retaliated by doing bombings in predominately black areas of Washington DC.

    Would you mourn the deaths of black civilians? I bet not.
    Would you perhaps support the white resistance fighters? Most likely yes.

    By the way, the above isn't a completely hypothetical situation. In the Reconstruction era South, blacks were placed in charge of the new government. The new government was considered oppressive towards Southern whites, who retaliated by joining the KKK in huge numbers and committing large numbers of terrorist attacks. Through terrorism, they regained control of their society.

    War, death, and dispossession easily can radicalize any ethnic group. Including whites. If you want to avoid creating groups like the KKK or ISIS, it's a good idea not to destroy a society. Especially (as was the case in Iraq) if there was no apparent reason to the start the war.

    No Sunni and Shia don’t get along and if forced to mix will kill each other. This is a historical fact. This is why Iraq is segregated along ethnic and religious lines. Saddam kept them from murdering each other with a brutal police force. Afghanistan is also broken up along ethnic and sectarian lines and killing one another is their favorite pastime. Syria was similarly segregated and run by a religious/secular minority.

    The only reason why Iran hasn’t invaded Iraq is because they already made Southern Iraq a Persian province. Iraq now a is a rump state composed of a crippled Sunni middle.

    And thanks for neglecting the religious aspect that drives it all. Heaven forbid we mention the Koran commands to wage jihad until the entire world is Islamic or how it’s a express train to heaven for believers or it’s viewing of unbelievers as so much worthless scum with no value whatsoever except as a natural resource.

    I just wonder how this aspect can be so neglected when it so heavily factors into Islam terrorism.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    They plenty mixed in Iraq and, up until 2003, weren't killing each other in large numbers.

    You're also incorrect that Iraq was "segregated" before the Iraq War. Intermarriages were common and most neighborhoods were ethnically mixed in Baghdad. Since the war ended, mass ethnic cleansing has occurred and resulted in more residential segregation.

    I suppose you could argue that the brutal police force kept the peace, but so what? If China invaded America and dismantled our police force, perhaps that might an increase in racial violence. Perhaps there might be some vigilante recriminations. Would that absolve the Chinese from the blame?

    Saddam, by the way, was remarkably tolerant to minorities in his country. He protected Christians and gave them plenty of senior assignments in his government. The US-supported current Iraqi regime has not shown the same tolerance.

    The Koran does command violence, but some Muslims accept the command and some don't. Destroying Iraq was significantly increased the percent who accept the command.
  28. @JohnnyWalker123
    I'd also add that prior to the 2003 Iraq War, Sunnis and Shiites definitely were not killing each other in large numbers. They weren't killing each other at all.

    Westerners don't need to keep or know who to sympathize with. They just need to refrain from overthrowing regimes for no reason.

    By the way, the US talks of fighting terrorism. Yet it destroys anti-terrorist regimes (such as Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad) while maintaining a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia, which has been promoting Islamic radicalism for decades.

    You apparently missed the 1980s…

  29. @jimmyriddle
    People have gone to much greater lengths to avoid propagating hate facts:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/german-politician-admits-lying-about-ethnicity-of-sex-attackers/

    "German politician admits lying about ethnicity of sex attackers to avoid fuelling racism "

    "She said she was forced to perform a sex act on her attackers, and immediately reported the sexual assault to the police.

    But she did not tell them that the men were speaking Arabic and Farsi"

    Selin Goren is a Muslim. She was raped by her correligionists, but wanted people to think Germans had done it. Logically she should be prosecuted for racism.

    • Agree: Nico
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    Exactly, it's ethnic/religious loyalty on her part, trying to slander Germans. Her surname seems German at first sight, but look where most Görens are from.
  30. @JohnnyWalker123
    Let's say the Chinese overthrew the American government due to its historical racism against blacks. Then installed black leaders into power and gave them lots of guns . Then those black leaders ethnically cleansed whites and killed lots of them. Then whites retaliates and killed huge numbers of blacks. As this was happening, Chinese soldiers also killed lots of whites. Some of those whites were fighters, but many were just random civilians.

    The Chinese could respond to that by pointing out Americans are racist, gun-crazy, and bizarre. It's not really their fault that any of that happened. If they had to kill Americans, Americans deserved it.

    Then Chinese produced a film called "Chinese Sniper." The film glorified a Chinese soldier who shot lots of white American resistance fighters. Would you like the film?

    Arabs and Muslims may be backward, violent, and oppressive. It doesn't change the fact that our government totally destroyed a functioning country and turned it into hell.

    Did you see the Red Dawn remake? The main American rebel leader (Chris Hemsworth) has some “inspirational” lines about resisting foreign occupation of one’s homeland… His military background to lead the rebellion? He was a veteran of the Iraqi war…

  31. @Blobby5
    I always wondered why we take such pains to make sure they cannot go off and fight. If we really love them, set them free...

    Free of this mortal coil

  32. I Noticed that the 2015 iSteve Man of the Year made this prestigious list.

    Did the report mention ethnicity or country of origin of their parents at least? Are 1st-generation Somalians considered African-American?

  33. @JohnnyWalker123
    Sunnis and Shiites have been ethnically cleansing one another since 2003 Iraq War ended. Interestingly, before that, they got along okay.

    Let's say China invaded America and killed a huge number of civilians. Let's say a civil war erupted between blacks and whites. Let's say the Chinese put blacks in charge of the government, which then persecuted and killed many whites. Then white resistance fighters retaliated by doing bombings in predominately black areas of Washington DC.

    Would you mourn the deaths of black civilians? I bet not.
    Would you perhaps support the white resistance fighters? Most likely yes.

    By the way, the above isn't a completely hypothetical situation. In the Reconstruction era South, blacks were placed in charge of the new government. The new government was considered oppressive towards Southern whites, who retaliated by joining the KKK in huge numbers and committing large numbers of terrorist attacks. Through terrorism, they regained control of their society.

    War, death, and dispossession easily can radicalize any ethnic group. Including whites. If you want to avoid creating groups like the KKK or ISIS, it's a good idea not to destroy a society. Especially (as was the case in Iraq) if there was no apparent reason to the start the war.

    Sunnis and Shiites have been ethnically cleansing one another since 2003 Iraq War ended. Interestingly, before that, they got along okay

    Not even close. Just for starters there was the 1980-1988 Iran Iraq war.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    What does that have to do with internal relations between Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiites?

    As for the Iraq-Iran War, it was initiated by secular dictator Saddam Hussein. He feared Islamic fundamentalism might spread into Iraq from Iran. America supported him through the war.
  34. @JohnnyWalker123
    Of course America's "War on Terror" has killed over 1.3 million Muslims over the last 15 years. Of those deaths, about 80% occurred in Iraq. It's not exactly clear why we attacked Iraq or what we hoped to accomplish, but our war seems to have accidentally killed a million Iraqis.

    Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS.

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

    The US troops and USAF didn’t kill with fire 1.3m Iraqis/Libyans/Syrians/Afghans AFAIK.

    It was the power vacuums which they created which, especially in Iraq and Libya, caused civil war and created countries which were actually worse than the brutal dictatorships they replaced. Quite a (negative) achievement.

    A US spokesperson was on BBC radio this morning pointing out post-Chilcot that the US couldn’t be blamed if people took a power drill and started drilling their neighbour’s head to kill and torture them. But if they deliberately remove the force which had previously restrained Iraqis from such actions …

  35. @wren
    Hey! Watch out Mr. Sailer! No noticing!

    The justice department will press charges on you for hatefacts crime.

    And the FBI will suck up all of your emails and everything.

    And you will be signed up for re-education seminars or something.

    “And the FBI will suck up all of your emails and everything.”

    No worries … The FBI just determined there can be no crimes to be found in e-mails. That finding of fact goes for everyone, right?

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Alarm, Nice catch and you know that legal defense and a new definition of intent are already in some lawyer's trial brief. Thank you to the firm of Comey and Lynch.
    , @scrivener3
    I thought it was a nice joke. It's not a court case and it is legal precedent for nothing.
  36. @JohnnyWalker123
    I'd also add that prior to the 2003 Iraq War, Sunnis and Shiites definitely were not killing each other in large numbers. They weren't killing each other at all.

    Westerners don't need to keep or know who to sympathize with. They just need to refrain from overthrowing regimes for no reason.

    By the way, the US talks of fighting terrorism. Yet it destroys anti-terrorist regimes (such as Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad) while maintaining a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia, which has been promoting Islamic radicalism for decades.

    Since about 800AD, they have been killing each other. The First Crusade was successful basically because the Shia were happy that we were smashing up the Sunni and let it win. As for modern times, have you heard of Lebanon or the Iran v Iraq war? Are you totally ignorant of all events prior to 2003?

    • Replies: @David
    Edward Gibbon seems to agree, writing in about 1780:

    The mischiefs that flow from the contests of ambition are usually confined to the times and countries in which they have been agitated. But the religious discord of the friends and enemies of Ali has been renewed in every age of the Hegira, and is still maintained in the immortal hatred of the Persians and Turks. The former, who are branded with the appellation of Shiites or sectaries, have enriched the Mahometan creed with a new article of faith; and if Mahomet be the apostle, his companion Ali is the vicar, of God. In their private converse, in their public worship, they bitterly execrate the three usurpers who intercepted his indefeasible right to the dignity of Imam and Caliph; and the name of Omar expresses in their tongue the perfect accomplishment of wickedness and impiety.
     
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites weren't killing each other in large numbers in modern times.

    As for the Iraq-Iran War, Saddam initiated it because he feared the spread of Shiite fundamentalism into his country. It was not a Sunni-Shiite Iraqi civil war. America, by the way, supported Saddam during that conflict.

    See below from Wikipedia.


    Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline that the "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."[3]

     

  37. @TGGP
    To be fair to the MSM, the fact that the Islamic State derives its base of support from believers in Islam is sufficiently obvious one does not need to point it out. Although there was a push by some to refer to them as "Daesh" (which apparently means the same thing) in order to deprive them of the use of the term "islamic" in western mindspace.

    I think Daesh is being promoted to take them down a peg with regard to the use of the word “state”. That was the dangerous word for the Western mindspace, because it legitimizes their aspiration to statehood. Notice how the Palestinians started using the words authority, congress etc to refer to hitherto inexistent institutions for an inexistent state. To assume legitimacy and create the trappings of statehood. Fake it till you make it. It’s state building 101.

  38. @JohnnyWalker123
    Let's say the Chinese overthrew the American government due to its historical racism against blacks. Then installed black leaders into power and gave them lots of guns . Then those black leaders ethnically cleansed whites and killed lots of them. Then whites retaliates and killed huge numbers of blacks. As this was happening, Chinese soldiers also killed lots of whites. Some of those whites were fighters, but many were just random civilians.

    The Chinese could respond to that by pointing out Americans are racist, gun-crazy, and bizarre. It's not really their fault that any of that happened. If they had to kill Americans, Americans deserved it.

    Then Chinese produced a film called "Chinese Sniper." The film glorified a Chinese soldier who shot lots of white American resistance fighters. Would you like the film?

    Arabs and Muslims may be backward, violent, and oppressive. It doesn't change the fact that our government totally destroyed a functioning country and turned it into hell.

    Here’s another analogy. Let’s say you stuck your hand into a hornet’s nest. Pretty dumb of you, right? You’re still not gonna feel sorry about any dead hornets, though.

    Quit it with the leftist-style rhetoric. It’s not helpful and it’s not persuasive. Americans want to leave that past behind, they don’t want to be guilt-tripped about it.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Quit it with the leftist-style rhetoric. It’s not helpful and it’s not persuasive."

    Who says? It isn't leftist to recognize that other people might resent foreign occupation of thier country. JohnyWalker123's argument seems persuasive to me.

    "Americans want to leave that past behind, they don’t want to be guilt-tripped about it."

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought, based on previous posts you have made, that you aren't an American, but rather an Israeli citizen. What would you know about what Americans want? In any event it has nothing to do with guilt-tripping, just recognizing that we made some collosal mistakes.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    I've never seen much evidence that Americans feel much guilt about anything that's happened in Iraq. Not even liberals seem to care much. Americans have given more thought to transgendered bathrooms than the mass slaughter in Iraq.

    Should Americans care? Given that it's their government and tax dollars that have killed 1+ million people for no apparent reason, a little introspection wouldn't hurt. $5 trillion was spent in this country, so a little introspection would be very helpful in avoiding future quagmires.

    If your view is that Iraqis are the equivalent of hornets, don't be surprised when Muslims dehumanize us. I personally have a dim view of Muslims, but randomly massacring them strikes me as excessive.
  39. @hbd chick
    thankfully the original report from fordham law tells us how many of them were muslim: all but one:

    Case by Case - ISIS Prosecutions in the United States

    you really gotta wonder if that one is the guy named joshua goldberg (pg. 11 of report)!

    As it happens, you can look up Joshua Goldberg’s background. He wasn’t really an ISIS supporter. He posed as an ISIS supporter as well as as a white supremacist. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and judged incompetent to stand trial.

    We can laugh at the idea of ISIS accepting a frail, bespectacled “Joshua Goldberg” into its ranks of fighters (to make Jihadi Joshua videos?), but there are other non-Muslim names on the list. I wouldn’t expect any of them to convert any more than one of Da Joos!

    • Replies: @hbd chick

    I wouldn’t expect any of them to convert any more than one of Da Joos!
     
    well, all the rest must've converted, 'cause the report says all but one are/were (if they're dead) muslim.

    thanks for the info on goldberg. i noticed a couple of irish names on the list, btw -- one was sullivan. don't recall the others just now.
  40. @JohnnyWalker123

    Whether we have caused unnecessary deaths or not, there is no reason to allow the mass immigration of muslims into the US.
     
    Sure. Even without the terrorism issue, I can think of many reasons not to want Muslims in our country. As group, they're unassimilable, backward, and difficult to get along with. Many European countries have learned that the hard way. I most certainly don't want Muslims in my country.

    However, our "War on Terror" seems to have indiscriminately slaughtered a huge number of Muslim civilians, for no particular reason. I think if China invaded America and accidentally killed 1 million Americans, Americans would be slightly annoyed. It wouldn't surprise me if some American troops overseas journeyed back home to fight back against Chinese forces.

    Fareed Zakaria had a special called "Why they hate us" on CNN. He seemed to be completely oblivious to all the Muslim deaths from post-2001 wars. He's not alone. Most Americans, especially our leaders, seem totally oblivious to this.

    One final point. You see a lot of people here (such as Peter Frost) talking about the atrocities of Muslim immigrants (crime, sexual violence, Rotherham grooming, terrorism). While I see those as legitimate issues, I noticed there's little (if any) discussion here on those 1.3 million deaths. The average person here seems not to lose much sleep over the mass slaughter their government is committing overseas. I've actually seen more discussion here on Ta Nehisi Coates than this issue.

    I think if there were a little more self-awareness on this topic, a lot of problems could've been avoided. If Muslim immigration were stopped (or even reversed), that would be very helpful too.

    Accidentaly? We created a civil-Religious war. Anyone with half a brain could have predicted the outcome.

  41. The nearly 100 United States residents accused of trying to help the Islamic State share certain characteristics that may have made them more susceptible to radicalization, according to a report from the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.

    – U.S. citizens [vs.] Permanent residents, refugees or other …

    This really obscures the issue.

    But buried in the report is the information that 75% were “second-generation Americans.” (This is ambiguous. The report doesn’t define “second-generation,” but I’m guessing that it means children of people who came here from foreign countries, not the children of people whose parents came here. It also doesn’t say whether this is 75% of citizens or 75% of the total.)

    By counting the faces in the NYT article, I’d estimate that 20-30 were either black or non-ME/Asian white. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that there is a much higher correlation between immigration and ME/Asian background than between immigration and African or white background. So, I’m guessing that almost all the Middle-Eastern/Asian ISIS supporters were either recent migrants or the children of recent immigrants.

    Hey, that gives me a great idea! How about a moratorium on immigration from Muslim countries!!

  42. @Chrisnonymous
    As it happens, you can look up Joshua Goldberg's background. He wasn't really an ISIS supporter. He posed as an ISIS supporter as well as as a white supremacist. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and judged incompetent to stand trial.

    We can laugh at the idea of ISIS accepting a frail, bespectacled "Joshua Goldberg" into its ranks of fighters (to make Jihadi Joshua videos?), but there are other non-Muslim names on the list. I wouldn't expect any of them to convert any more than one of Da Joos!

    I wouldn’t expect any of them to convert any more than one of Da Joos!

    well, all the rest must’ve converted, ’cause the report says all but one are/were (if they’re dead) muslim.

    thanks for the info on goldberg. i noticed a couple of irish names on the list, btw — one was sullivan. don’t recall the others just now.

  43. @JohnnyWalker123
    I'd also add that prior to the 2003 Iraq War, Sunnis and Shiites definitely were not killing each other in large numbers. They weren't killing each other at all.

    Westerners don't need to keep or know who to sympathize with. They just need to refrain from overthrowing regimes for no reason.

    By the way, the US talks of fighting terrorism. Yet it destroys anti-terrorist regimes (such as Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad) while maintaining a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia, which has been promoting Islamic radicalism for decades.

    I’d also add that prior to the 2003 Iraq War, Sunnis and Shiites definitely were not killing each other in large numbers. They weren’t killing each other at all.

    Could you send me a postcard from La-La Land, please? Sounds like a nice place you’re at.

  44. @jimmyriddle
    People have gone to much greater lengths to avoid propagating hate facts:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/german-politician-admits-lying-about-ethnicity-of-sex-attackers/

    "German politician admits lying about ethnicity of sex attackers to avoid fuelling racism "

    "She said she was forced to perform a sex act on her attackers, and immediately reported the sexual assault to the police.

    But she did not tell them that the men were speaking Arabic and Farsi"

    They were probably only speaking Arabic. Arabic and Farsi? Those people people do not get along.

  45. Why are there Somali Muslim immigrants in the USA? In addition to Minnesota, Lewiston, Maine has been greatly enriched.

    How did they get here?

    The Somali community in the U.S. is now among the largest in the Somali diaspora.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Americans

  46. @JohnnyWalker123
    Let's say the Chinese overthrew the American government due to its historical racism against blacks. Then installed black leaders into power and gave them lots of guns . Then those black leaders ethnically cleansed whites and killed lots of them. Then whites retaliates and killed huge numbers of blacks. As this was happening, Chinese soldiers also killed lots of whites. Some of those whites were fighters, but many were just random civilians.

    The Chinese could respond to that by pointing out Americans are racist, gun-crazy, and bizarre. It's not really their fault that any of that happened. If they had to kill Americans, Americans deserved it.

    Then Chinese produced a film called "Chinese Sniper." The film glorified a Chinese soldier who shot lots of white American resistance fighters. Would you like the film?

    Arabs and Muslims may be backward, violent, and oppressive. It doesn't change the fact that our government totally destroyed a functioning country and turned it into hell.

    Sheesh, movie reviews now? I’m not really interested in who likes what movie. Your hypothetical metaphor would be more exact if the Chinese overthrew a US minority black government partly on the grounds that it had been oppressing the white majority but really because it had been making reckless threats against the Chinese. In the new democratic majority regime, pre-existing but widely ignored black-white conflict continues but is now documented by outside groups with their own divergent agendas.

    “our government totally destroyed a functioning country and turned it into hell.”

    You might ask some some Iraqi Shia or Kurds whether the country was really “totally functioning” and is now “hell”. Even the Iraqi Sunni were not necessarily happy outside of Saddam’s Tikriti clans.

    You seem to believe that no matter what happens, only the white man has moral agency. Why do you deny free will to others? Are you a racist?

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Except that Iraq wasn't threatening America at that time. From at least 2002 onward, it's been America making the reckless threats.

    1+ million Iraqis died out of a population of 25 million. Millions have fled the country or ended up internally dispossessed. None of this was happening prior to the 2003 war. So, yes, I'd use the term "hell." Unless you happen to think that present day Iraq is a picnic in the park.

    Regardless of how happy or unhappy Iraqis were under Saddam, they're unquestionably far worse off today.

    Remember that shoe throwing incident?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4

    Why did the Iraqi journalist throw the shoe at Bush? Maybe because Muslims are just inherently crazed people? Or maybe he had a legitimate grievance?
  47. @JohnnyWalker123
    Let's say the Chinese overthrew the American government due to its historical racism against blacks. Then installed black leaders into power and gave them lots of guns . Then those black leaders ethnically cleansed whites and killed lots of them. Then whites retaliates and killed huge numbers of blacks. As this was happening, Chinese soldiers also killed lots of whites. Some of those whites were fighters, but many were just random civilians.

    The Chinese could respond to that by pointing out Americans are racist, gun-crazy, and bizarre. It's not really their fault that any of that happened. If they had to kill Americans, Americans deserved it.

    Then Chinese produced a film called "Chinese Sniper." The film glorified a Chinese soldier who shot lots of white American resistance fighters. Would you like the film?

    Arabs and Muslims may be backward, violent, and oppressive. It doesn't change the fact that our government totally destroyed a functioning country and turned it into hell.

    Your analogy is not apt. You’d have to include whites traveling from other nations committing mass acts of terrorism, bombing, etc. against native whites for not being sufficiently committed to the white cause.

  48. biz says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Of course America's "War on Terror" has killed over 1.3 million Muslims over the last 15 years. Of those deaths, about 80% occurred in Iraq. It's not exactly clear why we attacked Iraq or what we hoped to accomplish, but our war seems to have accidentally killed a million Iraqis.

    Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS.

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

    Yes, definitely.

    Anger at the United States explains why periodically the Thai Muslim minority decides to behead a dozen or more Thai Buddhist monks and leave them on the side of the road as a statement. Against America of course.

    It explains why in Nigeria Boko Haram kidnaps, rapes, and murders other Nigerians.

    It explains why in Kenya Al Shabab took over that mall and intentionally killed all of the non-Muslim Kenyans.

    It explains why ISIS just killed 100+ Iraqis on the streets of Baghdad, mostly other Muslims.

    It explains why ISIS detonated a bomb in a Shia mosque in Yemen while those Shia were in mid “Death to America” chant. Nothing communicates legitimate grievances ™ against America like blowing up other people voicing their legitimate grievances against America.

    It definitely explains all of the Muslim terrorist atrocities before the war on terror even started (the ’93 World Trade Center Bombing, for example)

    And anger at Americas War on Terror definitely explains all of the Muslim atrocities before the United States even existed, such as the kidnapping and enslavement of 50 million Europeans, boiling alive the Sikh gurus in oil, etc.

    Yep, all explained.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    How many of those incidents involved killing Americans?

    The WTC attack had something to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Muslims may be barbaric, but they really weren't obsessed with killing us until the last 15 years. What could've changed in that time?

    Ghetto blacks shoot other ghetto blacks in large numbers. Let's say you randomly killed a bunch of ghetto blacks one day (including children), without any provocation. Then the various black gangs put a hit on you. What do you conclude? That ghetto blacks are completely insane and are coming after you due to their insanity? Or do you conclude that yes, they may be violent, but they had no real conflict with you until you unnecessarily killed lots of them?
  49. @This Is Our Home
    Since about 800AD, they have been killing each other. The First Crusade was successful basically because the Shia were happy that we were smashing up the Sunni and let it win. As for modern times, have you heard of Lebanon or the Iran v Iraq war? Are you totally ignorant of all events prior to 2003?

    Edward Gibbon seems to agree, writing in about 1780:

    The mischiefs that flow from the contests of ambition are usually confined to the times and countries in which they have been agitated. But the religious discord of the friends and enemies of Ali has been renewed in every age of the Hegira, and is still maintained in the immortal hatred of the Persians and Turks. The former, who are branded with the appellation of Shiites or sectaries, have enriched the Mahometan creed with a new article of faith; and if Mahomet be the apostle, his companion Ali is the vicar, of God. In their private converse, in their public worship, they bitterly execrate the three usurpers who intercepted his indefeasible right to the dignity of Imam and Caliph; and the name of Omar expresses in their tongue the perfect accomplishment of wickedness and impiety.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Except that in early 2003, Iraq was tranquil. Several years later, Iraq was in the midst of bloody civil war (that continues today).

    It's very mysterious what changed. Perhaps Edward Gibbon could offer us some analysis.
  50. @JohnnyWalker123

    Whether we have caused unnecessary deaths or not, there is no reason to allow the mass immigration of muslims into the US.
     
    Sure. Even without the terrorism issue, I can think of many reasons not to want Muslims in our country. As group, they're unassimilable, backward, and difficult to get along with. Many European countries have learned that the hard way. I most certainly don't want Muslims in my country.

    However, our "War on Terror" seems to have indiscriminately slaughtered a huge number of Muslim civilians, for no particular reason. I think if China invaded America and accidentally killed 1 million Americans, Americans would be slightly annoyed. It wouldn't surprise me if some American troops overseas journeyed back home to fight back against Chinese forces.

    Fareed Zakaria had a special called "Why they hate us" on CNN. He seemed to be completely oblivious to all the Muslim deaths from post-2001 wars. He's not alone. Most Americans, especially our leaders, seem totally oblivious to this.

    One final point. You see a lot of people here (such as Peter Frost) talking about the atrocities of Muslim immigrants (crime, sexual violence, Rotherham grooming, terrorism). While I see those as legitimate issues, I noticed there's little (if any) discussion here on those 1.3 million deaths. The average person here seems not to lose much sleep over the mass slaughter their government is committing overseas. I've actually seen more discussion here on Ta Nehisi Coates than this issue.

    I think if there were a little more self-awareness on this topic, a lot of problems could've been avoided. If Muslim immigration were stopped (or even reversed), that would be very helpful too.

    You obviously haven’t been a reader of steves work very long or your just a plain ol ignoramus. The premise of about all of his articles is ” invade the world, invite the world”. It’s about all we talk about here. No we don’t give a shit about Muslims. Perhaps a little “self awareness on your part is in order. Were you even alive when Jimmy Carter was president?

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    In the last year, I've seen more discussion of Ta Nehisi Coates than the destruction of Iraq.
  51. @JohnnyWalker123
    France was involved in the military strikes against Colonel Gaddaffi. Since then, Libya has collapsed into complete chaos. France has also been extensively involved in Syria.

    Brussels is the capital of the European Union, which has generally been supportive of US military involvement in the Middle East.

    The Bali terror attacks were aimed at Australian tourists. Australia sent troops to Iraq back in 2003.

    There's almost a pattern here.

    By the way, is the US-led Iraq War any more rational or humane than any of these terrorist attacks?

    It seems to me that if you see a barking dog who's foaming at the mouth, you don't randomly start throwing rocks at it. If that dog bites you, maybe you shouldn't be surprised.

    Actually the dog was barking for the last thousand years. And again I ask, where you alive during the Carter administration?

  52. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Sunnis and Shiites have been ethnically cleansing one another since 2003 Iraq War ended. Interestingly, before that, they got along okay.

    Let's say China invaded America and killed a huge number of civilians. Let's say a civil war erupted between blacks and whites. Let's say the Chinese put blacks in charge of the government, which then persecuted and killed many whites. Then white resistance fighters retaliated by doing bombings in predominately black areas of Washington DC.

    Would you mourn the deaths of black civilians? I bet not.
    Would you perhaps support the white resistance fighters? Most likely yes.

    By the way, the above isn't a completely hypothetical situation. In the Reconstruction era South, blacks were placed in charge of the new government. The new government was considered oppressive towards Southern whites, who retaliated by joining the KKK in huge numbers and committing large numbers of terrorist attacks. Through terrorism, they regained control of their society.

    War, death, and dispossession easily can radicalize any ethnic group. Including whites. If you want to avoid creating groups like the KKK or ISIS, it's a good idea not to destroy a society. Especially (as was the case in Iraq) if there was no apparent reason to the start the war.

    War, death, and dispossession easily can radicalize any ethnic group.

    You’re getting a lot of flack because most people prefer to ignore the culpability of the US in all this and act as though it all sprouted out of the ground spontaneously. There’s a reason for what’s been going on as you’ve been trying to point out. Fact: Most Americans care nothing about millions of people being killed and impoverished thousands of miles away by the actions of their government as long as they themselves are not discomfited and can play with their electronic gadgets. They want the mirror on the wall to tell them they’re the fairest of them all.

    • Agree: JohnnyWalker123
  53. @IHTG
    Here's another analogy. Let's say you stuck your hand into a hornet's nest. Pretty dumb of you, right? You're still not gonna feel sorry about any dead hornets, though.

    Quit it with the leftist-style rhetoric. It's not helpful and it's not persuasive. Americans want to leave that past behind, they don't want to be guilt-tripped about it.

    “Quit it with the leftist-style rhetoric. It’s not helpful and it’s not persuasive.”

    Who says? It isn’t leftist to recognize that other people might resent foreign occupation of thier country. JohnyWalker123’s argument seems persuasive to me.

    “Americans want to leave that past behind, they don’t want to be guilt-tripped about it.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought, based on previous posts you have made, that you aren’t an American, but rather an Israeli citizen. What would you know about what Americans want? In any event it has nothing to do with guilt-tripping, just recognizing that we made some collosal mistakes.

    • Agree: JohnnyWalker123
  54. @415 reasons
    OT but Steve if you haven't seen this PBS documentary about the attempts to reform the Newark NJ PD you really should watch it.

    It demonstrates why any attempt to reduce the number of police shootings winds up increasing murder rates: NYPD style reform that uses intelligence and data analysis is impossible strictly due to the lack of intelligence of all the people involved in the decision making. Which in this case includes Amiri Baraka's son who is the mayor. There's a scene at the intelligence command center for the police department where the police commissioner and the head of command center show Baraka how they relay all information by hand on index cards because all the computers are broken or shut down and no one knows how to use them anyways.

    Given that the police can't work smarter, the only way to for them to shoot less people is to confront less of the armed people on the street. Less aggressive policing, more guns on the street, more murders, pretty simple.

    415 Reasons, Baltimore’s police department is down 13% since last year, that is uniformed officers, did not see a number for detectives, inspectors etc. The city’s murder rate is approaching record numbers again. Perfect opportunity for DOJ to “assist” their police force.

  55. Oh wow the “nearly 100” people? Gee what a gargantuan number, ISIS is really a terrifying existential threat. I think the only solution is to shit my pants and vote to give rich people tax cuts; better ignore the zero ISIS attacks that have occurred in America or that you’re more likely to die falling off a ladder than you are from a muslim terrorist, you should be really scared for no reason and vote to maintain American political corruption and aristocracy.

  56. I couldn’t let the thread pass is that the commentators arguing against “Johnny Walker123” are using the debating technique of citing lots of supporting “facts” that are, well, made up.

  57. @JohnnyWalker123
    The US-supported Iraqi government is dominated by Shiites, who seem to have killed and displaced large numbers of Sunnis. The Iraqi Sunnis embraced ISIS as a way to fight back and reassert their dominance. The foreign fighters coming to Iraq are predominately Sunni Arabs, who are waging war to support their co-religionists.

    Sunnis and Shiites regard one another as infidels. So assuming you're a fundamentalist Muslim, joining a Sunni or Shiite holy war might make sense.

    By the way, I never said that Muslims were particularly smart or reasonable people. My point was that killing 1+ million Muslims (for no particular reason) isn't a very good strategy if you want to win their hearts and minds. It's the type of thing that provokes violence.

    Johnny, You state your position, but I don’t think we can “win their hearts and minds.” Their differences are not like the differences between Catholics, Methodists, Protestants, this is tribal hatred which is unknown in the USA. I shudder when I think that somewhere one of these religious fanatics is trying to go nuclear, with every intention of using it in the name of Allah.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    There wasn't mass scale religious fanaticism in Iraq until 2003. As Trump said, Saddam Hussein killed terrorists.
  58. @The Alarmist

    "And the FBI will suck up all of your emails and everything."
     
    No worries ... The FBI just determined there can be no crimes to be found in e-mails. That finding of fact goes for everyone, right?

    Alarm, Nice catch and you know that legal defense and a new definition of intent are already in some lawyer’s trial brief. Thank you to the firm of Comey and Lynch.

  59. But she did not tell them that the men were speaking Arabic and Farsi”

    Leftists and Muslims are like a match made in Heaven. One side is fanatically aggressive (“at your feet or at your throat”), and the other is fanatically devoted to surrendering (“Allah’s Willing Victims”).

    The rest of us just need an opt-out clause and some popcorn.

  60. @hbd chick
    thankfully the original report from fordham law tells us how many of them were muslim: all but one:

    Case by Case - ISIS Prosecutions in the United States

    you really gotta wonder if that one is the guy named joshua goldberg (pg. 11 of report)!

    I tried skimming the Fordham report and didn’t see one of the pie charts indicating their religion. So I re-read from the beginning and lo and behold, there was one sentence saying all were Muslim but one at the time of arrest. Interesting. I wonder if that particular fact would have been too embarrassing to put into a pie chart.

  61. @The Alarmist

    "And the FBI will suck up all of your emails and everything."
     
    No worries ... The FBI just determined there can be no crimes to be found in e-mails. That finding of fact goes for everyone, right?

    I thought it was a nice joke. It’s not a court case and it is legal precedent for nothing.

  62. Somebody mentioned police shootings. Seems we’ve got another life that matters lost, this time in Minnesota. I’ve heard very little, other than the fact that his baby mama was in the passenger seat and says that he told the cop he had a concealed carry permit as he was reaching for his wallet. NPR said that several times, so I assume they’ve got it right, at least on paper. Am I the only one who thinks those two things are really, really unwise when butted up against one another? It should go something like this, if you value your life: 1) [hands on steering wheel] “hello, officer. I want you to know that I have a firearm on my (location), and a concealed carry permit for it. My wallet is right next to my firearm. How should we proceed?” [keeps hands on steering wheel, waits like a command prompt for input from cop, until Doomsday if necessary…]. 2) Follow officer’s instructions with very slow, deliberate movements, taking pains to keep your hands clearly in the cop’s view 3) Do not put your hands anywhere near the firearm.

    Obviously, this could present a bit of a conundrum, if the cop wants you to reach for the gun. Something tells me he won’t (just guessing, I don’t know police procedure). Something tells me he’ll either have you sit there with your hands on the wheel while he waits for backup, or he’ll have you put your hands out the window so he can cuff you, or he’ll otherwise separate you from your weapon.

    I have to wonder if he was under the influence, assuming the girl is telling the truth. Who announces a firearm to a cop while reaching for it?

    Obviously, that assumption is up in the air at this point, but if it’s a lie, it’s not even a good one.

    K, judging by the Daily Mail piece, it sounds like the cop jumped the gun, as it were, and shot him out of panic, without seeing a weapon. If so he can kiss his job goodbye, at best, and get ready for prosecution, at worst. This is exactly why I suggest 1-2-3 above. Take it step by step. Telling a cop you have a gun as you reach for it (in the sense that your wallet is next to it, at least as far as the cop knows) is a spectacularly bad idea. You keep your hands on the wheel, or out the window, or on the back of your head, or wherever it is he tells you to put them. And you keep them there, establish rapport, establish your intention to follow instructions, and to take things one step at a time (as long as they don’t involve handling the weapon.).

    This is all just my advice, it is not any kind of protocol, and it is not professional advice. I have no idea what the manual says you’re supposed to do. I just think reaching for or toward a concealed firearm during a police contact is nuts, never mind doing it right as or right after you’ve told him you’re armed.

    “And as he went to reach, he let the officer know before he was reaching that he had a firearm on him, and before he can let the officer know anything, the officer took off shots. About four or five rounds was shot.”

    Oy. GREAT way to get yourself killed. Saying nothing about the firearm (unless asked) would’ve been better. “The Talk” could apparently use some revision.

    I’m not blaming the guy, btw. A lot of cops are trigger-happy/nervous, and this cop sounds like one of them. But that’s the whole point of being very careful with them.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I have read so many stories of trigger happy cops killing people (white and black) that I just don't know what to say anymore. At least the cop who killed a black guy in Minnesota this time wasn't white, so it can't be blamed on white privilege. So maybe the NAMs and the AMs can duke it out, and I can just take the day off.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhUkGIsKvn0
  63. I’m going to guess that it all happened very quickly. Because from what I know, and common sense, a cop who thinks he’s dealing with an armed driver is going to immediately back away from the driver’s side and go around the back of the car to the passenger side (“cover” position?), a much safer and more tactically sound position. He had 5 years of experience, so I doubt he would have wasted any time moving once he heard the driver was armed.

  64. Oy. GREAT way to get yourself killed. Saying nothing about the firearm (unless asked) would’ve been better. “The Talk” could apparently use some revision.

    Assuming your firearm is on your back, and you can retrieve your wallet without revealing the weapon, which can get dicey fast. Really, it’s probably best to keep your wallet and your gun well separated while you’re driving. One on you, and the other in the glove compartment, for example. Whenever I’m stopped and I have my wallet somewhere other than in my pocket (sometimes I keep it in a backpack), I tell the cop where it is before I reach for it, and make sure he agrees that I should retrieve it before doing so.

  65. @IHTG
    Here's another analogy. Let's say you stuck your hand into a hornet's nest. Pretty dumb of you, right? You're still not gonna feel sorry about any dead hornets, though.

    Quit it with the leftist-style rhetoric. It's not helpful and it's not persuasive. Americans want to leave that past behind, they don't want to be guilt-tripped about it.

    I’ve never seen much evidence that Americans feel much guilt about anything that’s happened in Iraq. Not even liberals seem to care much. Americans have given more thought to transgendered bathrooms than the mass slaughter in Iraq.

    Should Americans care? Given that it’s their government and tax dollars that have killed 1+ million people for no apparent reason, a little introspection wouldn’t hurt. $5 trillion was spent in this country, so a little introspection would be very helpful in avoiding future quagmires.

    If your view is that Iraqis are the equivalent of hornets, don’t be surprised when Muslims dehumanize us. I personally have a dim view of Muslims, but randomly massacring them strikes me as excessive.

  66. @Buffalo Joe
    Johnny, You state your position, but I don't think we can "win their hearts and minds." Their differences are not like the differences between Catholics, Methodists, Protestants, this is tribal hatred which is unknown in the USA. I shudder when I think that somewhere one of these religious fanatics is trying to go nuclear, with every intention of using it in the name of Allah.

    There wasn’t mass scale religious fanaticism in Iraq until 2003. As Trump said, Saddam Hussein killed terrorists.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    There wasn’t mass scale religious fanaticism in Iraq until 2003. As Trump said, Saddam Hussein killed terrorists.
     
    Trump is at least somewhat correct. But your assertion about Iraq is--best of my limited knowledge--again false.

    I've ready several accounts of people who were in Iraq that the Sunni areas in particular were trending noticeably more Islamic--more beards, more traditional (non-western) dress, more skull caps, more conservative veiling, more religious observance--during the interwar period. The trend probably even precedes the Gulf War defeat. Saddam had put Allah Akbar on the flag in 1991 to specifically appeal with a muslim national identity.

    There is *clearly* an Islamic revival or "awakening" that is rippling through the Muslim world this last generation or so. (Compare\contrast to the 2nd great awakening.) It's sources--prosperity, media, reaction to modernism, disruption of traditional society, Saudi money\funding of Wahhabi strain--are multi-varied. And indeed it is reacting to aspects of US polices in some places (i.e. Israel), but it stretches across the globe, through non-Arab regions to places and conflicts that have nothing to do with Arabs, Israel or any direct US policy. Iraq in the heart of the Arab world was affected by this revival\radicalization regardless of any US involvement at all. Obviously, with the US invasion, we provided a particularly appealing battle cry for Islamic radicals and target for jihadi action--US soldiers. Yet, nonetheless the Sunni terrorists mostly selected other soft targets--Shia mosques, market places, etc.--for their killing and that's where the big Iraq body counts come from. Other places they select other targets--Russian school kids, Thai Buddhist monks, Israeli commuters, British subway riders, Paris concert goers and football fans, Indian hotel guests, Madrid train passengers, Timorese schoolgirls, Philippine villagers. Somehow in a violation of all that causality crap i learned in physics, they even managed to attack New York office buildings *before* we invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam.

    What you're doing is the same old garbage i've heard from leftists my whole life. Anything going on with the "oppressed" other in the world--at home: blacks shooting each other or abroad: muslims blowing each other up--is somehow the fault of the US and its actions. The US is indeed a powerful presence in the world--its military, its economy (and free trade economic system), its culture, Hollyweird's output. But every morning, people wake up in their *own* bodies with their *own* genes and their *own* culture--mores, morals, traditions, religion, tribes, language, etc. People have their own agency. People are different. And they are most especially *not* a bunch of cosmopolitan, good thinking white liberals inside who would bust out world peace singing kumbaya if not for whitey and\or the US government.
  67. @JohnnyWalker123

    Whether we have caused unnecessary deaths or not, there is no reason to allow the mass immigration of muslims into the US.
     
    Sure. Even without the terrorism issue, I can think of many reasons not to want Muslims in our country. As group, they're unassimilable, backward, and difficult to get along with. Many European countries have learned that the hard way. I most certainly don't want Muslims in my country.

    However, our "War on Terror" seems to have indiscriminately slaughtered a huge number of Muslim civilians, for no particular reason. I think if China invaded America and accidentally killed 1 million Americans, Americans would be slightly annoyed. It wouldn't surprise me if some American troops overseas journeyed back home to fight back against Chinese forces.

    Fareed Zakaria had a special called "Why they hate us" on CNN. He seemed to be completely oblivious to all the Muslim deaths from post-2001 wars. He's not alone. Most Americans, especially our leaders, seem totally oblivious to this.

    One final point. You see a lot of people here (such as Peter Frost) talking about the atrocities of Muslim immigrants (crime, sexual violence, Rotherham grooming, terrorism). While I see those as legitimate issues, I noticed there's little (if any) discussion here on those 1.3 million deaths. The average person here seems not to lose much sleep over the mass slaughter their government is committing overseas. I've actually seen more discussion here on Ta Nehisi Coates than this issue.

    I think if there were a little more self-awareness on this topic, a lot of problems could've been avoided. If Muslim immigration were stopped (or even reversed), that would be very helpful too.

    I think if China invaded America and accidentally killed 1 million Americans, Americans would be slightly annoyed. …

    … While I see those as legitimate issues, I noticed there’s little (if any) discussion here on those 1.3 million deaths. The average person here seems not to lose much sleep over the mass slaughter their government is committing overseas.

    Johnny, now you’ve moved from the implied fuzzy lie, to the direct lie.

    The US did *not* kill anything near 1.3 million muslims, or cause them to be killed. If the US–wisely or un–ousts some dictator it does not “kill” when some Sunni Muslim whackos blow up the mosque of Shia Muslims or blow up a crowded market place. (Actually even all those deaths do not get you anywhere 1.3 million, those estimates are phonied up by “activists”–kids not born who “should have been born”, old people died of the flu “who would have had better medical care” that sort of nonsense. The Iraq war actual body count is an order of magnitude less.)

    The US *did* kill millions of Germans and Japanese bombing their cities–taking the war directly against their civilian populations. Those are real killings we are responsible for and you put them in the moral\political hopper with the goal of winning the war, winning it quickly, military value of disrupting German\Japanese industry and demoralizing their civilian populations. And yet having very bloodily ousted German and Japanese dictatorships, Germans and Japanese were able to quickly form orderly productive societies–even in the representative government form we asked–and form amiable relations with us.

    That the Arabs can not form orderly, cooperative, pleasant, prosperous societies–even given the US booting their dictator(s), holding elections, providing support for their government–is … the Arabs’ fault! No one else’s. Not the United States’, not mine, not even George W. Bush’s.

    Of course, realization that they do not possess that ability–through some combination of insufficient, IQ, cooperation, conscientiousness; tribalism and Islam–should have given us additional pause in try to “fix” anything with those folks at all. And should do more than give us pause, but should be a giant flashing red light stopping us from letting any of them come into the West.

    But Arabs blowing each other apart does not “US killing” or “mass slaughter their government is committing” make.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    No, those 1.3 million deaths are actual deaths from violence.

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

    I agree that Arabs can't form orderly or prosperous societies. Which is why it's not a good idea to overthrow regimes.

    The U.S. did disband the Iraqi army after the 2003 war. That probably had something to do with the eruption of violence.
  68. @Svigor
    Somebody mentioned police shootings. Seems we've got another life that matters lost, this time in Minnesota. I've heard very little, other than the fact that his baby mama was in the passenger seat and says that he told the cop he had a concealed carry permit as he was reaching for his wallet. NPR said that several times, so I assume they've got it right, at least on paper. Am I the only one who thinks those two things are really, really unwise when butted up against one another? It should go something like this, if you value your life: 1) [hands on steering wheel] "hello, officer. I want you to know that I have a firearm on my (location), and a concealed carry permit for it. My wallet is right next to my firearm. How should we proceed?" [keeps hands on steering wheel, waits like a command prompt for input from cop, until Doomsday if necessary...]. 2) Follow officer's instructions with very slow, deliberate movements, taking pains to keep your hands clearly in the cop's view 3) Do not put your hands anywhere near the firearm.

    Obviously, this could present a bit of a conundrum, if the cop wants you to reach for the gun. Something tells me he won't (just guessing, I don't know police procedure). Something tells me he'll either have you sit there with your hands on the wheel while he waits for backup, or he'll have you put your hands out the window so he can cuff you, or he'll otherwise separate you from your weapon.

    I have to wonder if he was under the influence, assuming the girl is telling the truth. Who announces a firearm to a cop while reaching for it?

    Obviously, that assumption is up in the air at this point, but if it's a lie, it's not even a good one.

    K, judging by the Daily Mail piece, it sounds like the cop jumped the gun, as it were, and shot him out of panic, without seeing a weapon. If so he can kiss his job goodbye, at best, and get ready for prosecution, at worst. This is exactly why I suggest 1-2-3 above. Take it step by step. Telling a cop you have a gun as you reach for it (in the sense that your wallet is next to it, at least as far as the cop knows) is a spectacularly bad idea. You keep your hands on the wheel, or out the window, or on the back of your head, or wherever it is he tells you to put them. And you keep them there, establish rapport, establish your intention to follow instructions, and to take things one step at a time (as long as they don't involve handling the weapon.).

    This is all just my advice, it is not any kind of protocol, and it is not professional advice. I have no idea what the manual says you're supposed to do. I just think reaching for or toward a concealed firearm during a police contact is nuts, never mind doing it right as or right after you've told him you're armed.

    "And as he went to reach, he let the officer know before he was reaching that he had a firearm on him, and before he can let the officer know anything, the officer took off shots. About four or five rounds was shot."

    Oy. GREAT way to get yourself killed. Saying nothing about the firearm (unless asked) would've been better. "The Talk" could apparently use some revision.

    I'm not blaming the guy, btw. A lot of cops are trigger-happy/nervous, and this cop sounds like one of them. But that's the whole point of being very careful with them.

    I have read so many stories of trigger happy cops killing people (white and black) that I just don’t know what to say anymore. At least the cop who killed a black guy in Minnesota this time wasn’t white, so it can’t be blamed on white privilege. So maybe the NAMs and the AMs can duke it out, and I can just take the day off.

  69. SPMoore8, both of the men who were shot were carrying concealed weapons. The media must be torn…

    As for the New Orleans shooting:

    http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/07/06/officers-shot-alton-sterling-wont-charged-crime/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Alton_Sterling

  70. That the Arabs can not form orderly, cooperative, pleasant, prosperous societies–even given the US booting their dictator(s), holding elections, providing support for their government–is … the Arabs’ fault! No one else’s. Not the United States’, not mine, not even George W. Bush’s.

    I disagree. To assume that these populations should be a-okay with having their strongmen forcibly removed and replaced with liberal democracy is gross negligence, at best. Yes, the violence unleashed was largely inflicted by the populations on themselves and one another, but it was unleashed by western regime change insanity. It’s not like these populations don’t seem to know that strongmen are the way to keep the peace in that part of the world.

    Of course, the delusion of equality is at the bottom of all of it.

  71. @This Is Our Home
    Since about 800AD, they have been killing each other. The First Crusade was successful basically because the Shia were happy that we were smashing up the Sunni and let it win. As for modern times, have you heard of Lebanon or the Iran v Iraq war? Are you totally ignorant of all events prior to 2003?

    Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites weren’t killing each other in large numbers in modern times.

    As for the Iraq-Iran War, Saddam initiated it because he feared the spread of Shiite fundamentalism into his country. It was not a Sunni-Shiite Iraqi civil war. America, by the way, supported Saddam during that conflict.

    See below from Wikipedia.

    Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC’s Nightline that the “Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.”[3]

  72. @David
    Edward Gibbon seems to agree, writing in about 1780:

    The mischiefs that flow from the contests of ambition are usually confined to the times and countries in which they have been agitated. But the religious discord of the friends and enemies of Ali has been renewed in every age of the Hegira, and is still maintained in the immortal hatred of the Persians and Turks. The former, who are branded with the appellation of Shiites or sectaries, have enriched the Mahometan creed with a new article of faith; and if Mahomet be the apostle, his companion Ali is the vicar, of God. In their private converse, in their public worship, they bitterly execrate the three usurpers who intercepted his indefeasible right to the dignity of Imam and Caliph; and the name of Omar expresses in their tongue the perfect accomplishment of wickedness and impiety.
     

    Except that in early 2003, Iraq was tranquil. Several years later, Iraq was in the midst of bloody civil war (that continues today).

    It’s very mysterious what changed. Perhaps Edward Gibbon could offer us some analysis.

    • Replies: @David
    I actually agree with your general point. I think the Iraq war was criminally stupid. It's at least partly America's fault that a million or so people died prematurely there. Americans who won't accept that seem defensively dishonest to me.
  73. @Kyle a
    You obviously haven't been a reader of steves work very long or your just a plain ol ignoramus. The premise of about all of his articles is " invade the world, invite the world". It's about all we talk about here. No we don't give a shit about Muslims. Perhaps a little "self awareness on your part is in order. Were you even alive when Jimmy Carter was president?

    In the last year, I’ve seen more discussion of Ta Nehisi Coates than the destruction of Iraq.

  74. @JohnnyWalker123
    There wasn't mass scale religious fanaticism in Iraq until 2003. As Trump said, Saddam Hussein killed terrorists.

    There wasn’t mass scale religious fanaticism in Iraq until 2003. As Trump said, Saddam Hussein killed terrorists.

    Trump is at least somewhat correct. But your assertion about Iraq is–best of my limited knowledge–again false.

    I’ve ready several accounts of people who were in Iraq that the Sunni areas in particular were trending noticeably more Islamic–more beards, more traditional (non-western) dress, more skull caps, more conservative veiling, more religious observance–during the interwar period. The trend probably even precedes the Gulf War defeat. Saddam had put Allah Akbar on the flag in 1991 to specifically appeal with a muslim national identity.

    There is *clearly* an Islamic revival or “awakening” that is rippling through the Muslim world this last generation or so. (Compare\contrast to the 2nd great awakening.) It’s sources–prosperity, media, reaction to modernism, disruption of traditional society, Saudi money\funding of Wahhabi strain–are multi-varied. And indeed it is reacting to aspects of US polices in some places (i.e. Israel), but it stretches across the globe, through non-Arab regions to places and conflicts that have nothing to do with Arabs, Israel or any direct US policy. Iraq in the heart of the Arab world was affected by this revival\radicalization regardless of any US involvement at all. Obviously, with the US invasion, we provided a particularly appealing battle cry for Islamic radicals and target for jihadi action–US soldiers. Yet, nonetheless the Sunni terrorists mostly selected other soft targets–Shia mosques, market places, etc.–for their killing and that’s where the big Iraq body counts come from. Other places they select other targets–Russian school kids, Thai Buddhist monks, Israeli commuters, British subway riders, Paris concert goers and football fans, Indian hotel guests, Madrid train passengers, Timorese schoolgirls, Philippine villagers. Somehow in a violation of all that causality crap i learned in physics, they even managed to attack New York office buildings *before* we invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam.

    What you’re doing is the same old garbage i’ve heard from leftists my whole life. Anything going on with the “oppressed” other in the world–at home: blacks shooting each other or abroad: muslims blowing each other up–is somehow the fault of the US and its actions. The US is indeed a powerful presence in the world–its military, its economy (and free trade economic system), its culture, Hollyweird’s output. But every morning, people wake up in their *own* bodies with their *own* genes and their *own* culture–mores, morals, traditions, religion, tribes, language, etc. People have their own agency. People are different. And they are most especially *not* a bunch of cosmopolitan, good thinking white liberals inside who would bust out world peace singing kumbaya if not for whitey and\or the US government.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's an article you should read.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/mid-easts-christians-intro/

    It's about how Saddam Hussein protected Christians.

    Since Saddam Hussein removed from power, the Iraqi Christian population has decreased by over 50%. That's a remarkable statistic.
  75. @biz
    Yes, definitely.

    Anger at the United States explains why periodically the Thai Muslim minority decides to behead a dozen or more Thai Buddhist monks and leave them on the side of the road as a statement. Against America of course.

    It explains why in Nigeria Boko Haram kidnaps, rapes, and murders other Nigerians.

    It explains why in Kenya Al Shabab took over that mall and intentionally killed all of the non-Muslim Kenyans.

    It explains why ISIS just killed 100+ Iraqis on the streets of Baghdad, mostly other Muslims.

    It explains why ISIS detonated a bomb in a Shia mosque in Yemen while those Shia were in mid "Death to America" chant. Nothing communicates legitimate grievances (tm) against America like blowing up other people voicing their legitimate grievances against America.

    It definitely explains all of the Muslim terrorist atrocities before the war on terror even started (the '93 World Trade Center Bombing, for example)

    And anger at Americas War on Terror definitely explains all of the Muslim atrocities before the United States even existed, such as the kidnapping and enslavement of 50 million Europeans, boiling alive the Sikh gurus in oil, etc.

    Yep, all explained.

    How many of those incidents involved killing Americans?

    The WTC attack had something to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Muslims may be barbaric, but they really weren’t obsessed with killing us until the last 15 years. What could’ve changed in that time?

    Ghetto blacks shoot other ghetto blacks in large numbers. Let’s say you randomly killed a bunch of ghetto blacks one day (including children), without any provocation. Then the various black gangs put a hit on you. What do you conclude? That ghetto blacks are completely insane and are coming after you due to their insanity? Or do you conclude that yes, they may be violent, but they had no real conflict with you until you unnecessarily killed lots of them?

  76. @JohnnyWalker123
    Except that in early 2003, Iraq was tranquil. Several years later, Iraq was in the midst of bloody civil war (that continues today).

    It's very mysterious what changed. Perhaps Edward Gibbon could offer us some analysis.

    I actually agree with your general point. I think the Iraq war was criminally stupid. It’s at least partly America’s fault that a million or so people died prematurely there. Americans who won’t accept that seem defensively dishonest to me.

  77. @Almost Missouri
    Sheesh, movie reviews now? I'm not really interested in who likes what movie. Your hypothetical metaphor would be more exact if the Chinese overthrew a US minority black government partly on the grounds that it had been oppressing the white majority but really because it had been making reckless threats against the Chinese. In the new democratic majority regime, pre-existing but widely ignored black-white conflict continues but is now documented by outside groups with their own divergent agendas.

    "our government totally destroyed a functioning country and turned it into hell."
     
    You might ask some some Iraqi Shia or Kurds whether the country was really "totally functioning" and is now "hell". Even the Iraqi Sunni were not necessarily happy outside of Saddam's Tikriti clans.

    You seem to believe that no matter what happens, only the white man has moral agency. Why do you deny free will to others? Are you a racist?

    Except that Iraq wasn’t threatening America at that time. From at least 2002 onward, it’s been America making the reckless threats.

    1+ million Iraqis died out of a population of 25 million. Millions have fled the country or ended up internally dispossessed. None of this was happening prior to the 2003 war. So, yes, I’d use the term “hell.” Unless you happen to think that present day Iraq is a picnic in the park.

    Regardless of how happy or unhappy Iraqis were under Saddam, they’re unquestionably far worse off today.

    Remember that shoe throwing incident?

    Why did the Iraqi journalist throw the shoe at Bush? Maybe because Muslims are just inherently crazed people? Or maybe he had a legitimate grievance?

  78. @22pp22
    Selin Goren is a Muslim. She was raped by her correligionists, but wanted people to think Germans had done it. Logically she should be prosecuted for racism.

    Exactly, it’s ethnic/religious loyalty on her part, trying to slander Germans. Her surname seems German at first sight, but look where most Görens are from.

  79. What that you say Steve? Do you actually mean th-th-that there actually may be Is-Is-ISLAMIC recruits????

    I’m shocked…totally shocked that a religion of peace could harbor such people.

  80. @rod1963
    No Sunni and Shia don't get along and if forced to mix will kill each other. This is a historical fact. This is why Iraq is segregated along ethnic and religious lines. Saddam kept them from murdering each other with a brutal police force. Afghanistan is also broken up along ethnic and sectarian lines and killing one another is their favorite pastime. Syria was similarly segregated and run by a religious/secular minority.

    The only reason why Iran hasn't invaded Iraq is because they already made Southern Iraq a Persian province. Iraq now a is a rump state composed of a crippled Sunni middle.

    And thanks for neglecting the religious aspect that drives it all. Heaven forbid we mention the Koran commands to wage jihad until the entire world is Islamic or how it's a express train to heaven for believers or it's viewing of unbelievers as so much worthless scum with no value whatsoever except as a natural resource.

    I just wonder how this aspect can be so neglected when it so heavily factors into Islam terrorism.

    They plenty mixed in Iraq and, up until 2003, weren’t killing each other in large numbers.

    You’re also incorrect that Iraq was “segregated” before the Iraq War. Intermarriages were common and most neighborhoods were ethnically mixed in Baghdad. Since the war ended, mass ethnic cleansing has occurred and resulted in more residential segregation.

    I suppose you could argue that the brutal police force kept the peace, but so what? If China invaded America and dismantled our police force, perhaps that might an increase in racial violence. Perhaps there might be some vigilante recriminations. Would that absolve the Chinese from the blame?

    Saddam, by the way, was remarkably tolerant to minorities in his country. He protected Christians and gave them plenty of senior assignments in his government. The US-supported current Iraqi regime has not shown the same tolerance.

    The Koran does command violence, but some Muslims accept the command and some don’t. Destroying Iraq was significantly increased the percent who accept the command.

  81. @NickG

    Sunnis and Shiites have been ethnically cleansing one another since 2003 Iraq War ended. Interestingly, before that, they got along okay
     
    Not even close. Just for starters there was the 1980-1988 Iran Iraq war.

    What does that have to do with internal relations between Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiites?

    As for the Iraq-Iran War, it was initiated by secular dictator Saddam Hussein. He feared Islamic fundamentalism might spread into Iraq from Iran. America supported him through the war.

  82. @AnotherDad

    There wasn’t mass scale religious fanaticism in Iraq until 2003. As Trump said, Saddam Hussein killed terrorists.
     
    Trump is at least somewhat correct. But your assertion about Iraq is--best of my limited knowledge--again false.

    I've ready several accounts of people who were in Iraq that the Sunni areas in particular were trending noticeably more Islamic--more beards, more traditional (non-western) dress, more skull caps, more conservative veiling, more religious observance--during the interwar period. The trend probably even precedes the Gulf War defeat. Saddam had put Allah Akbar on the flag in 1991 to specifically appeal with a muslim national identity.

    There is *clearly* an Islamic revival or "awakening" that is rippling through the Muslim world this last generation or so. (Compare\contrast to the 2nd great awakening.) It's sources--prosperity, media, reaction to modernism, disruption of traditional society, Saudi money\funding of Wahhabi strain--are multi-varied. And indeed it is reacting to aspects of US polices in some places (i.e. Israel), but it stretches across the globe, through non-Arab regions to places and conflicts that have nothing to do with Arabs, Israel or any direct US policy. Iraq in the heart of the Arab world was affected by this revival\radicalization regardless of any US involvement at all. Obviously, with the US invasion, we provided a particularly appealing battle cry for Islamic radicals and target for jihadi action--US soldiers. Yet, nonetheless the Sunni terrorists mostly selected other soft targets--Shia mosques, market places, etc.--for their killing and that's where the big Iraq body counts come from. Other places they select other targets--Russian school kids, Thai Buddhist monks, Israeli commuters, British subway riders, Paris concert goers and football fans, Indian hotel guests, Madrid train passengers, Timorese schoolgirls, Philippine villagers. Somehow in a violation of all that causality crap i learned in physics, they even managed to attack New York office buildings *before* we invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam.

    What you're doing is the same old garbage i've heard from leftists my whole life. Anything going on with the "oppressed" other in the world--at home: blacks shooting each other or abroad: muslims blowing each other up--is somehow the fault of the US and its actions. The US is indeed a powerful presence in the world--its military, its economy (and free trade economic system), its culture, Hollyweird's output. But every morning, people wake up in their *own* bodies with their *own* genes and their *own* culture--mores, morals, traditions, religion, tribes, language, etc. People have their own agency. People are different. And they are most especially *not* a bunch of cosmopolitan, good thinking white liberals inside who would bust out world peace singing kumbaya if not for whitey and\or the US government.

    Here’s an article you should read.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/mid-easts-christians-intro/

    It’s about how Saddam Hussein protected Christians.

    Since Saddam Hussein removed from power, the Iraqi Christian population has decreased by over 50%. That’s a remarkable statistic.

  83. @AnotherDad

    I think if China invaded America and accidentally killed 1 million Americans, Americans would be slightly annoyed. ...

    ... While I see those as legitimate issues, I noticed there’s little (if any) discussion here on those 1.3 million deaths. The average person here seems not to lose much sleep over the mass slaughter their government is committing overseas.
     
    Johnny, now you've moved from the implied fuzzy lie, to the direct lie.

    The US did *not* kill anything near 1.3 million muslims, or cause them to be killed. If the US--wisely or un--ousts some dictator it does not "kill" when some Sunni Muslim whackos blow up the mosque of Shia Muslims or blow up a crowded market place. (Actually even all those deaths do not get you anywhere 1.3 million, those estimates are phonied up by "activists"--kids not born who "should have been born", old people died of the flu "who would have had better medical care" that sort of nonsense. The Iraq war actual body count is an order of magnitude less.)

    The US *did* kill millions of Germans and Japanese bombing their cities--taking the war directly against their civilian populations. Those are real killings we are responsible for and you put them in the moral\political hopper with the goal of winning the war, winning it quickly, military value of disrupting German\Japanese industry and demoralizing their civilian populations. And yet having very bloodily ousted German and Japanese dictatorships, Germans and Japanese were able to quickly form orderly productive societies--even in the representative government form we asked--and form amiable relations with us.

    That the Arabs can not form orderly, cooperative, pleasant, prosperous societies--even given the US booting their dictator(s), holding elections, providing support for their government--is ... the Arabs' fault! No one else's. Not the United States', not mine, not even George W. Bush's.

    Of course, realization that they do not possess that ability--through some combination of insufficient, IQ, cooperation, conscientiousness; tribalism and Islam--should have given us additional pause in try to "fix" anything with those folks at all. And should do more than give us pause, but should be a giant flashing red light stopping us from letting any of them come into the West.

    But Arabs blowing each other apart does not "US killing" or "mass slaughter their government is committing" make.

    No, those 1.3 million deaths are actual deaths from violence.

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

    I agree that Arabs can’t form orderly or prosperous societies. Which is why it’s not a good idea to overthrow regimes.

    The U.S. did disband the Iraqi army after the 2003 war. That probably had something to do with the eruption of violence.

  84. @JohnnyWalker123
    Of course America's "War on Terror" has killed over 1.3 million Muslims over the last 15 years. Of those deaths, about 80% occurred in Iraq. It's not exactly clear why we attacked Iraq or what we hoped to accomplish, but our war seems to have accidentally killed a million Iraqis.

    Perhaps that might be a slight factor in why people are joining ISIS.

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

    For the most part I agree, and can’t understand the negative reaction to your comment. For Iraq’s 33m people, the only chance of a normal life lay in the continuation of Saddam’s Ba’athist regime. It was a strong, unbending, authoritarian government that mostly succeeded in keeping the country’s various ethnic and religious factions from slaughtering each other. The American invasion deprived them of that and unleashed a bloodbath that will continue until another Saddam takes over. The fact that it’s mostly Iraqis killing each other is no consolation to the innocent victims.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    My view on Muslims is pretty simple.

    We don't belong there.
    They don't belong here.

    Let them run their countries in any way they want. As long as they leave us alone and stay out of America, I'm not much concerned what goes on in their countries.

    I do think that Muslims tend to be backward and barbaric, but our "War on Terror" has unnecessarily aggravated them.

    We should be like Japan. Japan has almost zero Muslim immigrants, but generally doesn't militarily involve itself overseas. This is why Japan doesn't have to worry much about terrorism. While we spend trillions pushing regime change in the Middle East, the Japanese just negotiate good trade deals and run large trade surpluses.
  85. Ed says:

    Just want to check to correct a historical error people keep making. With the internet, its easy enough to verify this.

    The Safivid dynasty took over Iran shortly after 1500. They opted to promote Shia Islam in their realm. The Ottoman Turks were Sunni Muslims. Iran, along with the other territories run by the Safavids, was the only country of significance in the Middle East not taken over by the Ottomans. The Iranians and the Ottoman Turks fought a number of wars against each other in the next three centuries.

    Many of the Arab rebellions against the Sunni Arab Ummayyad and Abbasaid caliphates adopted the cause of Shiism, though the likelihood is that the rebellion happened first, and the rebels adopted the minority Islamic sect to rally discontented people to the rebellion.

    The thing is, these two examples exhaust the historical examples of Sunni vs. Shia conflict. There are no examples in Muslim of anything like the crusade waged by Catholic Christians against Orthodox Christians, the crusades waged by Catholics against various dissenting sects, or the Catholic vs Protestant religious wars of the 16th and 17th century. Shia ruled countries and Sunni ruled countries weren’t more prone to go to war against each other than against anyone else. There is simply no Sunni vs Shia flavored religious war until the late twentieth century.

    The Viziers (Prime Ministers) of the later Sunni Abbasid Caliphs were a Shia family, the Buyids.

    The conflict has been much more low-key, and over smaller doctrinal differences, than the equivalent Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant conflict in Christianity.

    The more recent negative stuff to come from that part of the world has been due mostly to the oil-money fueled growth of Wahhabi Islam (technically Sunni but a really weird part of Sunnism), though I don’t think the US government has really helped in this area.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "There is simply no Sunni vs Shia flavored religious war until the late twentieth century."
     
    Dude, seriously? Check out the Battle of Karbala. That was in 680, and the conflict has been ongoing ever since.

    The Shia commemorate Karbala every year with blood ritual, to make sure they don't forget their enemies.
  86. @Rob McX
    For the most part I agree, and can't understand the negative reaction to your comment. For Iraq's 33m people, the only chance of a normal life lay in the continuation of Saddam's Ba'athist regime. It was a strong, unbending, authoritarian government that mostly succeeded in keeping the country's various ethnic and religious factions from slaughtering each other. The American invasion deprived them of that and unleashed a bloodbath that will continue until another Saddam takes over. The fact that it's mostly Iraqis killing each other is no consolation to the innocent victims.

    My view on Muslims is pretty simple.

    We don’t belong there.
    They don’t belong here.

    Let them run their countries in any way they want. As long as they leave us alone and stay out of America, I’m not much concerned what goes on in their countries.

    I do think that Muslims tend to be backward and barbaric, but our “War on Terror” has unnecessarily aggravated them.

    We should be like Japan. Japan has almost zero Muslim immigrants, but generally doesn’t militarily involve itself overseas. This is why Japan doesn’t have to worry much about terrorism. While we spend trillions pushing regime change in the Middle East, the Japanese just negotiate good trade deals and run large trade surpluses.

    • Agree: Rob McX
  87. @anon
    Whether we have caused unnecessary deaths or not, there is no reason to allow the mass immigration of muslims into the US.

    Actually, if we've caused unnecessary deaths, that seems like all the more reason not to let them come here. How much sense does it make to invite people into your country, if you know they actually have a legitimate reason to hate you?

    I say this to people, and some of them honestly seem shocked. As though they're more concerned with "fairness" than they are with having less conflict in their own country. It's really strange to me.

    I’m “shocked” by your attitude that not being concerned with fairness is noble.

    [There are several layers of craziness here.]

  88. @JohnnyWalker123
    France was involved in the military strikes against Colonel Gaddaffi. Since then, Libya has collapsed into complete chaos. France has also been extensively involved in Syria.

    Brussels is the capital of the European Union, which has generally been supportive of US military involvement in the Middle East.

    The Bali terror attacks were aimed at Australian tourists. Australia sent troops to Iraq back in 2003.

    There's almost a pattern here.

    By the way, is the US-led Iraq War any more rational or humane than any of these terrorist attacks?

    It seems to me that if you see a barking dog who's foaming at the mouth, you don't randomly start throwing rocks at it. If that dog bites you, maybe you shouldn't be surprised.

    Oh come on Johnny. There is nothing we can do about the Is-lamb-ick world’s hatred. Their insistence on universal acquiescence to Moose Limb primitivism is absurd. The rational approach would be to zero out their immigration, and insist that those here either eat an Iowa pork chop every week or emigrate to one of the 57 Moose Limb states.

    They can either isolate their polities from modernity and continue their culture, or settle for the ignominious defeat we are morally obligated to inflict upon them.

    There is no retrofitting the 21st century into a 7th century sensibility. And blaming us is what the loons on the Left do.

    Repent brother. The hour is late, and we are in a 2-front death struggle with the primitivism of the Muslims and the primitivism of the Left.

    Either we win, or (if I am alive) I’ll greet you in the reeducation camps.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Japan seems to be getting along fine without any substantial participation in foreign wars or any Muslim immigration. Japan also, mysteriously, is not the target of Muslim hatred. That should be our model.

    One need not like Muslims to understand the folly in constant wars in their countries.
  89. @Ed
    Just want to check to correct a historical error people keep making. With the internet, its easy enough to verify this.

    The Safivid dynasty took over Iran shortly after 1500. They opted to promote Shia Islam in their realm. The Ottoman Turks were Sunni Muslims. Iran, along with the other territories run by the Safavids, was the only country of significance in the Middle East not taken over by the Ottomans. The Iranians and the Ottoman Turks fought a number of wars against each other in the next three centuries.

    Many of the Arab rebellions against the Sunni Arab Ummayyad and Abbasaid caliphates adopted the cause of Shiism, though the likelihood is that the rebellion happened first, and the rebels adopted the minority Islamic sect to rally discontented people to the rebellion.

    The thing is, these two examples exhaust the historical examples of Sunni vs. Shia conflict. There are no examples in Muslim of anything like the crusade waged by Catholic Christians against Orthodox Christians, the crusades waged by Catholics against various dissenting sects, or the Catholic vs Protestant religious wars of the 16th and 17th century. Shia ruled countries and Sunni ruled countries weren't more prone to go to war against each other than against anyone else. There is simply no Sunni vs Shia flavored religious war until the late twentieth century.

    The Viziers (Prime Ministers) of the later Sunni Abbasid Caliphs were a Shia family, the Buyids.

    The conflict has been much more low-key, and over smaller doctrinal differences, than the equivalent Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant conflict in Christianity.

    The more recent negative stuff to come from that part of the world has been due mostly to the oil-money fueled growth of Wahhabi Islam (technically Sunni but a really weird part of Sunnism), though I don't think the US government has really helped in this area.

    “There is simply no Sunni vs Shia flavored religious war until the late twentieth century.”

    Dude, seriously? Check out the Battle of Karbala. That was in 680, and the conflict has been ongoing ever since.

    The Shia commemorate Karbala every year with blood ritual, to make sure they don’t forget their enemies.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    The Spaniards still burn Prophet Mohammed effigy, but it's been a few centuries since they threw out the moors.

    The fact is there was no serious internal Sunni-Shia slaughter in Iraq under Hussein. It only began after the American "liberation" of the country in 2003. Muslims may be barbaric, but Hussein kept the Shia and Sunni from slaughtering each other very effectively. America couldn't do even that.
  90. @JohnnyWalker123
    I'd also add that prior to the 2003 Iraq War, Sunnis and Shiites definitely were not killing each other in large numbers. They weren't killing each other at all.

    Westerners don't need to keep or know who to sympathize with. They just need to refrain from overthrowing regimes for no reason.

    By the way, the US talks of fighting terrorism. Yet it destroys anti-terrorist regimes (such as Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad) while maintaining a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia, which has been promoting Islamic radicalism for decades.

    Well, you’re about half right. Prior to 2003, Shia weren’t killing many Sunni, but Sunni were killing plenty of Shia (and Sunni Kurds). After 2003, the Shia and Kurds were in a much better position to fight back. And they did.

    I actually agree with you that destroying the Assad regime in Syria was a huge mistake. All the clichéd arguments made against the Iraq invasion are actually true about Syria, yet strangely no one wants to use those arguments where they actually apply, possibly because the Syrian intervention was cooked up by a mulatto and coven of incompetent women, so it would be bigoted to point out their stupidity.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    They were not killing "plenty" Shia or Kurds. From the end of the Gulf War on ward, the U.S. military presence kept Saddam's forces militarily contained. The death toll under the American occupation far exceeds internal killings under the Hussein regime during the 90s.

    I agree about Syria. A mistake.
  91. @Almost Missouri

    "There is simply no Sunni vs Shia flavored religious war until the late twentieth century."
     
    Dude, seriously? Check out the Battle of Karbala. That was in 680, and the conflict has been ongoing ever since.

    The Shia commemorate Karbala every year with blood ritual, to make sure they don't forget their enemies.

    The Spaniards still burn Prophet Mohammed effigy, but it’s been a few centuries since they threw out the moors.

    The fact is there was no serious internal Sunni-Shia slaughter in Iraq under Hussein. It only began after the American “liberation” of the country in 2003. Muslims may be barbaric, but Hussein kept the Shia and Sunni from slaughtering each other very effectively. America couldn’t do even that.

  92. @Almost Missouri
    Well, you're about half right. Prior to 2003, Shia weren't killing many Sunni, but Sunni were killing plenty of Shia (and Sunni Kurds). After 2003, the Shia and Kurds were in a much better position to fight back. And they did.

    I actually agree with you that destroying the Assad regime in Syria was a huge mistake. All the clichéd arguments made against the Iraq invasion are actually true about Syria, yet strangely no one wants to use those arguments where they actually apply, possibly because the Syrian intervention was cooked up by a mulatto and coven of incompetent women, so it would be bigoted to point out their stupidity.

    They were not killing “plenty” Shia or Kurds. From the end of the Gulf War on ward, the U.S. military presence kept Saddam’s forces militarily contained. The death toll under the American occupation far exceeds internal killings under the Hussein regime during the 90s.

    I agree about Syria. A mistake.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Um, yeah, "contained" inside the same borders with Shia and Kurds.

    Look, don't take my word for it, just ask an unslaughtered Iraqi Shia or Kurd how lovely life was with Saddam. I'm not a Shia or Kurd, but your strange obsession with denying the atrocities against them strikes me as a sort of mini-holocaust denial.

    I'm not even arguing that the Iraq war was right. Removing Saddam and overturning Iraqi society were two different things, but perhaps due to WWII nostalgia Americans couldn't make that distinction, alas.
  93. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Oh come on Johnny. There is nothing we can do about the Is-lamb-ick world's hatred. Their insistence on universal acquiescence to Moose Limb primitivism is absurd. The rational approach would be to zero out their immigration, and insist that those here either eat an Iowa pork chop every week or emigrate to one of the 57 Moose Limb states.

    They can either isolate their polities from modernity and continue their culture, or settle for the ignominious defeat we are morally obligated to inflict upon them.

    There is no retrofitting the 21st century into a 7th century sensibility. And blaming us is what the loons on the Left do.

    Repent brother. The hour is late, and we are in a 2-front death struggle with the primitivism of the Muslims and the primitivism of the Left.

    Either we win, or (if I am alive) I'll greet you in the reeducation camps.

    Japan seems to be getting along fine without any substantial participation in foreign wars or any Muslim immigration. Japan also, mysteriously, is not the target of Muslim hatred. That should be our model.

    One need not like Muslims to understand the folly in constant wars in their countries.

  94. Actually, what the ISIS recruits in the USA have in common is that they don’t really exist.

    Well, you may have some feeble-minded people who are recruited by the actual State organs in sting operations, but as an organically occurring phenomenon, people in the U.S. joining ISIS, it’s something non-existent basically.

    It’s a synthetic narrative. Sailer doesn’t understand this, of course. But what to expect of somebody who thinks that it makes sense to do a statistical analysis of a set of synthetic events? Not the sharpest pencil in the drawer.

  95. @JohnnyWalker123
    They were not killing "plenty" Shia or Kurds. From the end of the Gulf War on ward, the U.S. military presence kept Saddam's forces militarily contained. The death toll under the American occupation far exceeds internal killings under the Hussein regime during the 90s.

    I agree about Syria. A mistake.

    Um, yeah, “contained” inside the same borders with Shia and Kurds.

    Look, don’t take my word for it, just ask an unslaughtered Iraqi Shia or Kurd how lovely life was with Saddam. I’m not a Shia or Kurd, but your strange obsession with denying the atrocities against them strikes me as a sort of mini-holocaust denial.

    I’m not even arguing that the Iraq war was right. Removing Saddam and overturning Iraqi society were two different things, but perhaps due to WWII nostalgia Americans couldn’t make that distinction, alas.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS