The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Patrick Cockburn ArchiveBlogview
Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban’ Will Only Lead to More Terrorist Attacks
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Donald Trump’s travel ban on refugees and visitors from seven Muslim countries entering the US makes a terrorist attack on Americans at home or abroad more rather than less likely. It does so because one of the main purposes of al-Qaeda and Isis in carrying out atrocities is to provoke an over-reaction directed against Muslim communities and states. Such communal punishments vastly increase sympathy for Salafi-jihadi movements among the 1.6 billion Muslims who make up a quarter of the world’s population.

The Trump administration justifies its action by claiming that it is only following lessons learned from 9/11 and the destruction of the Twin Towers. But it has learned exactly the wrong lesson: the great success of Mohammed Atta and his eighteen hijackers was not on the day that they and 3,000 others died, but when President George W Bush responded by leading the US into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that are still going on.

Al-Qaeda and its clones had been a small organisation with perhaps as few as a thousand militants in south east Afghanistan and north west Pakistan. But thanks to Bush’s calamitous decisions after 9/11, it now has tens of thousands of fighters, billions of dollars in funds and cells in dozens of countries. Few wars have failed so demonstrably or so badly as “the war on terror”. Isis and al-Qaeda activists are often supposed to be inspired simply by a demonic variant of Islam – and this is certainly how Trump has described their motivation – but in practice it was the excesses of the counter-terrorism apparatus such as torture and rendition, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib which acted as the recruiting sergeant for the Salafi-jihadi movements.

The Trump administration is now sending a message to al-Qaeda and Isis that Washington is easily provoked into mindless and counter-productive repression targeting Muslims in general. Those affected so far are limited in number and about the last people likely to be engaged in terrorist plots. But the political impact is already immense. Salafi-jihadi leaders may be monsters of cruelty and bigotry, but they are not stupid. They will see that if Trump, unprovoked by any terrorist outrage, will act with such self-defeating vigour, then a few bombs or shootings directed at American targets will lead to more scatter-gun persecution of Muslims.

Like leaders everywhere Isis commanders will wonder how unhinged Trump really is. The banning order may in part be a high profile way of assuring Trump voters that his pledges on the campaign trail will be fulfilled. But demagogues tend to become the creatures of their own rhetoric and certainly Trump’s words and actions will be presented as a sectarian declaration of war by many Muslims around the world. Isis will also see that by pressing their attacks they will deepen divisions within American society.

ORDER IT NOW

Bush targeted Saddam Hussein and Iraq in response to 9/11, though it was self-evident that the Iraqi leader and his regime had no connection with it. It was notorious that 15 out of 19 of the hijackers were Saudis, Osama bin Laden was a Saudi and the money for the operation came from private Saudi donors, but Saudi Arabia was given a free pass regardless of strong evidence of its complicity.

Much the same bizarre mistargeting of Muslim countries least likely to be sending terrorists to the US is happening in 2017 as happened in 2001. Though 9/11 is cited as an explanation for Trump’s executive order, none of the countries whose citizens were involved (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Lebanon) are facing any restrictions. The people who are being refused entry come from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen and Somalia. Since the main targets of al-Qaeda and Isis are Shia Muslims primarily in Iraq but also in other parts of the word, Iran is the last place which is likely to be their base.

Since Isis’s great victories in 2014 when it captured Mosul and conquered a vast area in in Iraq and Syria, it has been beaten back by a myriad of enemies. Though it is fighting back hard, its eventual defeat has seemed inevitable, but with Trump fuelling the sectarian war between Muslims and non-Muslims which Isis and al-Qaeda always wanted to wage, their prospects look brighter today than they have for a long time past.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Donald Trump, Muslim Ban, Terrorism 
    []
  1. Such communal punishments vastly increase sympathy for Salafi-jihadi movements among the 1.6 billion Muslims who make up a quarter of the world’s population.

    Yes, collective punishment would do that, but how is this a ‘punishment’? Visa restrictions and bans are common in the Arab states (also Iran, Pakistan). I don’t think anyone interprets it as a ‘punishment’…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
    Muslims already established in the U.S. will get the message, LOUD AND CLEAR, that anti-American subversion will no longer be tolerated.

    To 97% of U.S. Muslims, this is a very welcome message. Meanwhile, the extremist 3% will at the very least lie low for a while. Organized da'wa (proselytizing) in prisons, among second-generation Muslim youth etc. will go on the back burner for some time and be less of a problem now that the adults are back in charge in DC.

    The majority of earlier and better integrated immigrants from the Muslim world have always cherished their good fortune in having escaped their Islam-addled countries of origin, and have no interest in encouraging further Islamization in the U.S. These immigrants mostly came to America before 2001 to live their own lives and enjoy the opportunities offered by their new home. They certainly never viewed themselves as jihadis sacrificing their lives to turn America into another Muslim land.

    Of course, many U.S. Muslims remain scared of murder and intimidation by an extremist but well-organized and well-funded minority. Just as serious to moderate Muslims is the risk of re-Islamization of second and third generation Muslims (mainly young men) by Saudi and Qatari-funded preachers and mosques.

    It is quite true that while there are moderate Muslims, there is NO doctrine of "moderate Islam." There is a whole industry - quite well funded - of bare-faced liars misrepresenting Islam as a peaceful doctrine that is compatible with the U.S. Constitution and Western values.

    In sum, many U.S. Muslims have quietly decided to live as BAD MUSLIMS, ignoring the more extreme doctrines of their faith. However, they are understandably reluctant to risk assassination as "hypocrites" or outright apostates as mandated by mainstream Islam.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pcockburn/trumps-muslim-ban-will-only-lead-to-more-terrorist-attacks/#comment-1746435
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Svigor says:

    Fine, we’ll just bomb more of them, until they get the point.

    “Let me sleep in your guest bedroom, or I’ll burn your house down” doesn’t work for me.

    Being race-replaced by wogs doesn’t work for me.

    Eat shit, Cockburn.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik, TWS, Amasius
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Lol, really. If these goat fucking Mohammedan jihadis keep up this bullshit, lets's covert our B-52s to giant crop dusters and saturate their Caliphate with thalidomide. Kind of hard to plant bombs and fire an AK into a crowd with only flippers.
  3. After eight years of murdering them who knew that Obama’s/Hillary’s peeps care about Muslims?

    Read More
  4. Avery says:

    {Donald Trump’s travel ban on refugees and visitors from seven Muslim countries entering the US makes a terrorist attack on Americans at home or abroad more rather than less likely. }

    Total nonsense, and easily debunked.

    Japan does not take any refugees, and has an immigrant population less than 2%.
    Their Muslim population is estimated at about 70,000.
    In a population of ~130 million.
    Japan had one terrorist attack by a home-grown cult many years ago.
    That’s it.

    Europe had no Muslim terrorist problems, until large numbers of Muslims moved in.
    US has had mass shootings and such, but terrorist acts (aside from Oklahoma City bombing) have been the work of Muslim immigrants or their progeny born in US.

    And the fact that most Muslims in US and Europe are peaceful is irrelevant.
    More and more Muslims in a Christian country means a larger and larger pool of young recruits to Islamic terrorist causes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    US has had mass shootings and such, but terrorist acts (aside from Oklahoma City bombing) have been the work of Muslim immigrants or their progeny born in US.
     
    No, you're misinformed. The events in question have all been false flags and hoaxes.
  5. Avery says:

    {vastly increase sympathy for Salafi-jihadi movements among the 1.6 billion Muslims who make up a quarter of the world’s population.}

    So…….. we should walk on egg-shells so as not to offend 1.6 billion Muslims, but it’s OK to offend 2.2 billion Christians?
    How come there is no concern that – you know – Christians might start terrorizing Muslims if pushed too far?
    And where in the US Constitution is it written that US has to take in either refugees or immigrants?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    How come there is no concern that – you know – Christians might start terrorizing Muslims if pushed too far?
     
    Christians are already terrorizing Muslims. What do you think US is doing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria?
  6. Talha says:

    I don’t agree with Mr. Cockburn on this – though I see where he is coming from. Muslims I have talked to don’t necessarily see this change in policy as ‘oppressive’ – inconvenient, to be sure, but hardly ‘oppressive’.

    Actually, more continuation of this crap is a more likely catalyst:

    http://m.thenational.ae/world/united-states/dozens-killed-in-us-special-forces-raid-on-yemen-village

    If we are tightening up the borders and even scrutinizing Muslims inside the US – both of which have some legitimacy in trying to tackle domestic terrorism…what the **** are we still bombing Yemen for???!!!

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Great - seriously???

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/29/trump-lets-saudis-off-his-muslim-ban/

    What the Hell??? This is seriously pissing me off! I thought this was going to change! I have zero confidence that the raid I cited above was an anti-terrorism operation. It could just as easily have been the US weighing in on the Saudi side in the Yemeni civil war and eliminating hostile elements.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    If we are tightening up the borders and even scrutinizing Muslims inside the US – both of which have some legitimacy in trying to tackle domestic terrorism
     
    Wow, you are really surpassing yourself in the Uncle Talha department.

    One thing I am unclear on, though. You know much more about Islam than I do. I know that Islam (like Judaism) forbids the eating of pork. I know that.

    Does Islam forbid you from being such a complete and utter fuckhead? Now, granted, Judaism does not either have (as far as I ever was taught) an explicit commandment of: "Though shalt not be a fuckhead" but it is kind of culturally understood, I feel....


    what the **** are we still bombing Yemen for???!!!
     
    Oh, you actually believe that we were bombing Yemen in order to "fight terrorism"....

    You know, even if Islam (as I suspect) does not have the explicit commandment: "Thou shalt not be a fuckhead", I would put it to you that you would do well to try to adhere more to that regardless. After all, Islam surely does not say: "Thou shalt be a fuckhead", does it?

  7. I find it illogical to suggest that banning refugees and immigrants from Muslim countries for 90 days would increase terrorism. It certainly won’t in the U.S.

    Does arresting and imprisoning drunk drivers increase drunk driving? Nope.

    Does setting up police check points near locations where a criminal has escaped prison so as to try to recover the criminal lead to increased prison escapes? Nope.

    Do police cordons and aggressive canvasing and manhunts after a felony is committed result in more felonies. Nope.

    See my point?

    LF

    Read More
  8. “Donald Trump’s travel ban on refugees and visitors from seven Muslim countries entering the US makes a terrorist attack on Americans at home or abroad more rather than less likely.”

    It’s hard to make “a terrorist attack on Americans at home or abroad” more likely since the probability is already 100%. If ISIS recruiting is aided by our refusal to make ISIS attacks easier… well, I can live with that. Killing your enemies is a price of having a country. Just do it.

    Read More
  9. MEexpert says:
    @Avery
    {vastly increase sympathy for Salafi-jihadi movements among the 1.6 billion Muslims who make up a quarter of the world’s population.}

    So........ we should walk on egg-shells so as not to offend 1.6 billion Muslims, but it's OK to offend 2.2 billion Christians?
    How come there is no concern that - you know - Christians might start terrorizing Muslims if pushed too far?
    And where in the US Constitution is it written that US has to take in either refugees or immigrants?

    How come there is no concern that – you know – Christians might start terrorizing Muslims if pushed too far?

    Christians are already terrorizing Muslims. What do you think US is doing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Christians are already terrorizing Muslims. What do you think US is doing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria?}

    Actually Bush, Blair, Cheney, The HildaBeast, The Wicked Witch aka Madelein "500,000 dead Iraqi kids, Yoohoo" Albright and all the other Neocon reptiles are demonstrably anti-Christian.

    Iraq had a large Christian population living safely under Saddam.
    They are all gone now since 'Christian' Bush & Blair invaded and destroyed Iraq.
    Syria also had a large, prosperous Christian population before the above mentioned war criminals unleashed the 5+ years of death and destruction there.
    Maybe 50% of Syrian Christian are gone now.
    All would be gone, had not RuAF come in*.

    Christian in name only US State Dept has been in the hands of Globalist God-less heathens for decades. Does not excuse that American people who kept voting them in. But all this has been discussed before at length at other threads (MSM brainwashing and such). So no need to re-visit it here.

    We have to wait and see if Trump starts the process of US resigning from the post of World Policeman and Busybody.


    ---
    * Bravery and tenacious fighting spirit of SAA is not forgotten. Also IRG and Hezb volunteers.
    But Assad was slowly losing ground before RuAF started pulverizing ISIS camps, supply lines, etc. Without Russia in Syria, No-fly zone would established by The HildaBeast gang during Obama, and Syria would be Libya redux.

    , @Joe Franklin

    Christians are already terrorizing Muslims. What do you think US is doing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria?
     
    There's nothing Christian about the US's victim cult and Jewish based governance.

    The US is Bolshevik, and is anti-Christian, and is emulating Israeli ideology.


    The similarities between the US and Israel are striking:

    1. US-Israel both are national democracies with no effective constitutional limits on their national government law making power. Government powers are based on the PC whims of whomever is appointed to the Supreme Court.

    2. US-Israel are dominated by an organized, super-majority of voters who self-identify as a victim cult, forever oppressed by Nazi. This victim cult is recognized by the central government as a bunch of entitled protected classes. This victim cult promotes itself as being vehemently anti-Nazi.

    3. US-Israel define a Nazi profile as being white-gentile-Christian-straight-gringo-healthy-independent-militia-occidental-male

    4. US-Israel have 2-party systems that dominate national politics

    5. US Republicans = conservative Judaism = Israeli Likud Party

    6. US Democrats = secular Judaism = Israeli Labor Party

    7. US-Israel have a super-majority of protected victim class voters, special people that demand and receive thousands of class based federal entitlements by law in exchange for their votes.

    8. US-Israel are fascist and aggressive proponents of the American-Israeli protected victim class supremacy scheme in the world

    9. US-Israel coordinate their attacks and sabotage of Israeli enemies in the middle east

    10. US-Israel coordinate their black operations

    11. US-Israel share their military technology and intelligence

    12. US-Israel are international pariah states for the same reasons

    13. US-Israel have biased immigration policies in favor of victim cult people.

    14. US-Israel cover for each others transgressions in the UN

    15. US-Israel military and foreign aid agreements are heavily biased toward Israeli enrichment

    16. US-Israel relationship is such that Israel can attack the US Navy, and be rewarded for doing so (USS Liberty)

    17. US-Israel is loaded with Judeo-Christian aka Jewish Messiah ideologues, people that venerate Jewish Old Testament morality.
    , @Avery
    {How come there is no concern that – you know – Christians might start terrorizing Muslims if pushed too far?}[Avery]
    {Christians are already terrorizing Muslims.}[MEexpert]


    This is the sort of thing I was referring to, when I wrote my original post.
    The post predates the tragic event, but what I meant is that at some point, people like this will start doing to innocent Muslims what Islamic terrorists have been doing to innocent Christians (....and other innocent Muslims, of course).

    [Canada shooting suspect rented apartment close to Quebec mosque -reports ]
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-shooting-suspect-rented-apartment-close-to-quebec-mosque-reports/ar-AAmof9J?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

    {Bissonnette, the sole suspect in Sunday night's shooting, was charged on Monday with six counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder with a restricted weapon. Police said he acted alone.}
    {Bissonnette did not hide his hostility toward Muslims during his long interrogation by police, Montreal's La Presse newspaper, quoting a source close to the investigation. He was also interested in guns, and practiced shooting at a local club near the provincial capital, La Presse reported.}
  10. Patrick, did you get beat up a lot at school? And did the class bully steal your lunch money or did you just hand a portion of it over to him every day? And finally, your middle name wouldn’t happen to be Aethelred would it?

    Read More
  11. Kyle a says:

    Blah blah blah. It’s not like a thousand years of conflict with these clowns and their dogma have had anything to do with it. We should just incinerate em all right now.

    Read More
  12. TheJester says:

    The Muslim ban wasn’t broad enough. Regardless, if what Trump ordered creates an identity crisis for Muslims … all I can say is, “Bring it on!” We need not care what Muslims think or feel with respect to America defining and defending its own interests and backing it up with military force.

    With respect to Muslim retaliation, it will be interesting what “soup” Trump and Putin are making to bring a quick end to radical Islam and Jihad. Certainly confining Muslims to MENA is a first step in the right direction. If they are over there, they cannot be doing damage over here.

    As the Europeans have slowly learned from their most recent Muslim invasion, Islam is an alien and hostile religion buttressed by an alien and hostile culture. (Their ancestors knew this explicitly but somehow in the last thousand years they forgot … .) The United States need not make the same mistake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    Islam is an alien and hostile religion buttressed by an alien and hostile culture. (Their ancestors knew this explicitly but somehow in the last thousand years they forgot...)

    Well, Europeans have been living side by side with Muslims for centuries, Islam is hardly alien to Europe the way it is to the US. Russia is 10% Muslim, and Orthodox Christians and Muslims mostly get along fine. The British, French and Spanish Empires all had large numbers of Muslim subjects. There have been mosques in Vienna since the Habsburgs in their infinite foolishness decided to incorporate Bosnia and all its Muslims into the Empire. Europeans mostly got along fine with Muslims in the Imperial days, even admired them. The British generally tended to favor Muslims in their colonies over pagans in Africa or Hindus in India. The big difference between now and then is that in the old days Europeans knew how to divide and conquer. Muslims are not a threat if you keep them disunited and angry at someone else. Instead Europe and the USA have accidentally conspired to give the Muslim world a single unifying cause (Israel) and to allow a single strain of Islamic thought access to the financial capital to dominate (Saudi Wahabism). Take away the oil money and radical Islam would diminish rather quickly.
  13. Avery says:
    @MEexpert

    How come there is no concern that – you know – Christians might start terrorizing Muslims if pushed too far?
     
    Christians are already terrorizing Muslims. What do you think US is doing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria?

    {Christians are already terrorizing Muslims. What do you think US is doing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria?}

    Actually Bush, Blair, Cheney, The HildaBeast, The Wicked Witch aka Madelein “500,000 dead Iraqi kids, Yoohoo” Albright and all the other Neocon reptiles are demonstrably anti-Christian.

    Iraq had a large Christian population living safely under Saddam.
    They are all gone now since ‘Christian’ Bush & Blair invaded and destroyed Iraq.
    Syria also had a large, prosperous Christian population before the above mentioned war criminals unleashed the 5+ years of death and destruction there.
    Maybe 50% of Syrian Christian are gone now.
    All would be gone, had not RuAF come in*.

    Christian in name only US State Dept has been in the hands of Globalist God-less heathens for decades. Does not excuse that American people who kept voting them in. But all this has been discussed before at length at other threads (MSM brainwashing and such). So no need to re-visit it here.

    We have to wait and see if Trump starts the process of US resigning from the post of World Policeman and Busybody.


    * Bravery and tenacious fighting spirit of SAA is not forgotten. Also IRG and Hezb volunteers.
    But Assad was slowly losing ground before RuAF started pulverizing ISIS camps, supply lines, etc. Without Russia in Syria, No-fly zone would established by The HildaBeast gang during Obama, and Syria would be Libya redux.

    Read More
  14. Talha says:
    @Talha
    I don't agree with Mr. Cockburn on this - though I see where he is coming from. Muslims I have talked to don't necessarily see this change in policy as 'oppressive' - inconvenient, to be sure, but hardly 'oppressive'.

    Actually, more continuation of this crap is a more likely catalyst:
    http://m.thenational.ae/world/united-states/dozens-killed-in-us-special-forces-raid-on-yemen-village

    If we are tightening up the borders and even scrutinizing Muslims inside the US - both of which have some legitimacy in trying to tackle domestic terrorism...what the **** are we still bombing Yemen for???!!!

    Peace.

    Great – seriously???

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/29/trump-lets-saudis-off-his-muslim-ban/

    What the Hell??? This is seriously pissing me off! I thought this was going to change! I have zero confidence that the raid I cited above was an anti-terrorism operation. It could just as easily have been the US weighing in on the Saudi side in the Yemeni civil war and eliminating hostile elements.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Krollchem
    The raid was against al-Qaeda in Yemen who have been allowed to expand due to Saudi attacks on the Yemen army and Shai fighters:
    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/01/29/spare-us-the-theatrics/

    I agree that the whack-a-mole method against Salafist terrorists will not work, BUT this is the only tool that President Trump has now. Ultimately he will have to shut down the Salafist/Wahhabist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism) religious university in Medina and shutdown all Salafist mosques in the US. I trust you understand French and offer this video that explains the threat:
    Colloque du CF2R sur l'idéologie wahhabite - Partie 1 (1 of 7)
    http://www.stratpol.com/colloque-c2fr-wahhabisme-part-1

    Ultimately, sanctions against Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and the other gulf states will be required to force them to renounce the Salafist ideology. The main problem is that the US political class (all parties) must be purged of all those bribed by these rich Salafist states. The Trump family will suffer economically as they have four properties in Saudi Arabia and a couple more in UAE!

    Trump will also have to face almost all of the EU political class as they have also been bought and paid for by the Salafist states.

    In the end "Winter is Coming" whether Trump succeeds or not:
    https://forecastingintelligence.org/2016/07/14/winter-is-coming/
  15. My dear Mr. Cockburn, President Bush’s and President Obama’s wars of choice in the Middle East and North Africa were offensive invasions and bombings of foreign countries, while President Trump’s suspension of immigration from its listed countries is a domestic defensive measure. Does that distinction, does that difference, not occur to you?

    Read More
  16. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Cockburn seems to believe the official gov’t explanation for 911? Are he and Margolis really that stupid, or have they been threatened?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    Cockburn seems to believe the official gov’t explanation for 911? Are he and Margolis really that stupid, or have they been threatened?
     
    Stupidity. No one is going to threaten these nobodies.
  17. Dissapointed in such pathetic conventional wisdom from PC. “But we must open our arms to them!! Otherwise they will kill us!!!!” Totally beyond belief. But I guess this is what multi-generational brainwashing programs buy you.

    Read More
  18. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Zionist-control of US foreign policy has Palestinianized entire Muslim Populations with New Nakba’s in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

    So, yes, the Ban itself won’t address the SOURCE of this problem.

    The Muslim World must be stabilized with the end to wars.

    Let modern secular Arab rulers like Assad have iron grip on that region.

    It’s better for them, better for us.

    Read More
  19. MarkinLA says:

    It does so because one of the main purposes of al-Qaeda and Isis in carrying out atrocities is to provoke an over-reaction directed against Muslim communities and states. Such communal punishments vastly increase sympathy for Salafi-jihadi movements among the 1.6 billion Muslims who make up a quarter of the world’s population.

    This is the great thing about being a self-proclaimed expert. Why you just reach right up your colon and pull out another gem when you need it. When it turns out you didn’t know squat you just wait for the next time and pull another one out. As long as there are wealthy people who need “expert” opinions to try and sway policy such that it goes against the interests of the people you will have a job – at least until your 1000th F-up like old George Will who finally got the boot from Fox but look how long it took and how many times he was dead wrong.

    Read More
  20. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Isis and al-Qaeda activists are often supposed to be inspired simply by a demonic variant of Islam – and this is certainly how Trump has described their motivation – but in practice it was the excesses of the counter-terrorism apparatus such as torture and rendition, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib which acted as the recruiting sergeant for the Salafi-jihadi movements.

    Wrong.

    For 14 centuries this barbaric death-dealing cult did not require any provocation save for the fact that its enemies did not believe in the ranting of their psychotic pedophilic false prophet.

    It took Christianity over 450 years – FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS – to first respond to the mahometan madness, mayhem, and murder and what does Cuckburn suggest we do?

    Let them into the west where they do not belong and where they are unassimilable. Were these worshippers of Satan wearing swastikas, he’d prolly not be too jake with their immigration into the west or if they were wearing hammers and sickles, held not be too jake, but Hijbas and burqas?

    No problem even though Hijabs and Burkas are very bit the enemy uniforms as the uniforms of the Nazis and Commies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Irene
    Not agreeing with Cockburn, but please remember that the early Christian proselytizers were killing Europeana pagans left and right before Christianity became respectable (and mighty stupid).
  21. Donald Trump’s travel ban on refugees and visitors from seven Muslim countries entering the US makes a terrorist attack on Americans at home or abroad more rather than less likely.

    This is the kind of claim that can never be settled. We know that there will be another Muslim terrorist attack. It is only a matter of time. Then those opposing the travel ban will make this author’s point, and those in favor of a more extensive travel ban will say that Trump did not go far enough.

    The only way we can be sure that no more Muslim terrorism takes place within our borders is to exclude all further travel into the country by Muslims and to expel the ones already here. We are not yet prepared to do that, but sooner or later we must either accept its necessity or acquiesce in dhimmitude.

    Read More
  22. Dear me, if I lock my doors, it’ll make the burglars very angry! kek!

    If the travel ban provokes the Mudslimes to more acts of terrorism, then so be it. We’ll respond the Trump way: hit back 10x harder. Only a pussy lets people invade his home on fear that not letting them invade will prove them.

    Read More
  23. Where was the whingeing from the lunatic left when Barry the Kenyan selected those seven countries to be specifically excluded from the vwp back in 2015?

    http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/5minute_arguments/obamas_administration_mad.phpp

    Read More
  24. KenH says:

    The Trump administration justifies its action by claiming that it is only following lessons learned from 9/11 and the destruction of the Twin Towers. But it has learned exactly the wrong lesson: the great success of Mohammed Atta and his eighteen hijackers was not on the day that they and 3,000 others died, but when President George W Bush responded by leading the US into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that are still going on.

    Totally ass backwards. The proper lesson to draw is that Mohammed Atta and his lovely cohorts should never been allowed to step foot on U.S. soil. We hand out student visas to the third world like candy and some of these students have ulterior motives.

    Perhaps if the U.S. stopped being a universal nation (which it was never intended to be) and served the interests of its founding racial stock there would be no 9/11 and we wouldn’t be having this debate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    The proper lesson to draw is that Mohammed Atta and his lovely cohorts should never been allowed to step foot on U.S. soil.
     
    No, the first thing to realize is that Mohammed Atta and the rest of them never did shit. Period.

    If you disagree, then please outline the evidence that they did.
  25. Mr. Anon says:

    “Such communal punishments vastly increase sympathy for Salafi-jihadi movements among the 1.6 billion Muslims who make up a quarter of the world’s population.”

    If so many of the worlds muslims can be swayed to support ISIS or similar organizations based on the United States lawfully exercising its sovereign right to determine who can or can not gain entry to our country, then none of them should be allowed in. Anyone who would be so offended is irrational and dangerous.

    “The Trump administration is now sending a message to al-Qaeda and Isis that Washington is easily provoked into mindless and counter-productive repression targeting Muslims in general.”

    Repression? That’s ridiculous. Not inviting someone into your home is not repressing them.

    Read More
  26. Clyde says:
    @Anon
    Cockburn seems to believe the official gov't explanation for 911? Are he and Margolis really that stupid, or have they been threatened?

    Cockburn seems to believe the official gov’t explanation for 911? Are he and Margolis really that stupid, or have they been threatened?

    Stupidity. No one is going to threaten these nobodies.

    Read More
  27. To quote Mike Cernovich, who tweeted in jest, if women say “no” to men, it will lead to more rapes.

    Read More
  28. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Svigor
    Fine, we'll just bomb more of them, until they get the point.

    "Let me sleep in your guest bedroom, or I'll burn your house down" doesn't work for me.

    Being race-replaced by wogs doesn't work for me.

    Eat shit, Cockburn.

    Lol, really. If these goat fucking Mohammedan jihadis keep up this bullshit, lets’s covert our B-52s to giant crop dusters and saturate their Caliphate with thalidomide. Kind of hard to plant bombs and fire an AK into a crowd with only flippers.

    Read More
  29. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    So, what is going on here?

    Trump’s actions have united Muslims and feminist skanks.
    It has united Muslims and Zionists.
    I’m guessing Homos are with Muslims too, though more nervously.

    Feminists and Jews feel compelled to ally with their cultural or tribal enemies.

    Islam is anti-homo, anti-Zionist, and anti-slut-skankery.
    And yet, they are united against Trump.

    This is good. Trump has forced into being a coalition that simply cannot hold.
    Something has to give. There are too many contradictions in an alliance of Muslims, Skanks, and Zionists.

    Read More
  30. Krollchem says:
    @Talha
    Great - seriously???

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/29/trump-lets-saudis-off-his-muslim-ban/

    What the Hell??? This is seriously pissing me off! I thought this was going to change! I have zero confidence that the raid I cited above was an anti-terrorism operation. It could just as easily have been the US weighing in on the Saudi side in the Yemeni civil war and eliminating hostile elements.

    The raid was against al-Qaeda in Yemen who have been allowed to expand due to Saudi attacks on the Yemen army and Shai fighters:

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/01/29/spare-us-the-theatrics/

    I agree that the whack-a-mole method against Salafist terrorists will not work, BUT this is the only tool that President Trump has now. Ultimately he will have to shut down the Salafist/Wahhabist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism) religious university in Medina and shutdown all Salafist mosques in the US. I trust you understand French and offer this video that explains the threat:
    Colloque du CF2R sur l’idéologie wahhabite – Partie 1 (1 of 7)

    http://www.stratpol.com/colloque-c2fr-wahhabisme-part-1

    Ultimately, sanctions against Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and the other gulf states will be required to force them to renounce the Salafist ideology. The main problem is that the US political class (all parties) must be purged of all those bribed by these rich Salafist states. The Trump family will suffer economically as they have four properties in Saudi Arabia and a couple more in UAE!

    Trump will also have to face almost all of the EU political class as they have also been bought and paid for by the Salafist states.

    In the end “Winter is Coming” whether Trump succeeds or not:

    https://forecastingintelligence.org/2016/07/14/winter-is-coming/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey KC,

    Few things...

    The raid was against al-Qaeda in Yemen
     
    I give as much credence to official statements from the Trump administration as I did with Obama's in this regard. But, let's assume it was al-Qaeda. We are already beefing up our border and immigration security and you stated that this whack-a-mole policy is not going to work, so...what the **** are we bombing Yemen for?

    this is the only tool that President Trump has now
     
    I disagree. He can and should de-escalate - big time. You mentioned that the reason certain groups are growing in Yemen is because of the civil war and instability which is fueled by Saudi war-making. They get their munitions from us and the Brits (which work with the hardware we sold them) - we can cut off the supply tomorrow if we wanted.

    Ultimately he will have to shut down the Salafist/Wahhabist religious university in Medina
     
    Again, he should stay out of any internal theological issues within the Muslim world. Many of the top Salafi/Wahhabi scholars have come out strong against extremist groups like Daesh. It's usually the young hot-heads that know just enough to be volatile that cause the most problems.
    Going in for one side will cause the Salafi/Wahhabi banner to be presented as the rallying cry against Western imperialism. It is completely counterproductive - more meddling is not what we need.

    and shutdown all Salafist mosques in the US
     
    If the people of the US want to make restrictions on the Bill of Rights, it is their prerogative. Russia also monitors and intervenes in persons or mosques that are deemed to be potentially subversive.

    I trust you understand French and offer this video that explains the threat
     
    I don't, but as a Muslim, I am quite aware of the threat of Salafi/Wahhabi extremists who have been butchering us like there's no tomorrow:
    www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMIReport1May31October2015.pdf

    And I'm also aware of the nuances between groups like Daesh and run-of-the-mill non-violent Muslims that espouse Salafi or Wahhabi teachings.

    Ultimately, sanctions against Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and the other gulf states will be required to force them to renounce the Salafist ideology.
     
    Again, counterproductive. You are looking at it through some kind of Cold War lens - did this work with Cuba or did they double down? If one really wants to hurt them then; 1) stop their ability to invest in or benefit economically from the West and 2) stop supplying them with weapon systems which they can pass on to extremist proxies.

    In the end “Winter is Coming”
     
    Though I'm a big fan of the book series - I do not look forward to any news of catastrophic collapse, but maybe a return to more moderate means of living is best for us all in the long run, especially if all the 'progress' is built on an unstable and unsustainable foundation in the first place...
    "It is right of God that He lowers whatever raises itself in the world." - reported in Bukhari

    Peace.
    , @krollchem
    “Going in for one side will cause the Salafi/Wahhabi banner to be presented as the rallying cry against Western imperialism.”

    Doubtful, as most Muslims around the world are peaceful and despise the Salafist ideology. I am sure they would welcome the elimination of the ideology and the return of a Sharif of Mecca.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_bin_Ali,_Sharif_of_Mecca
  31. Krollchem says:

    The Trump travel ban has been covered in great detail at:
    Outrage About Trump Exposes “Librul” Hypocrisy
    January 29, 2017

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/

    Read More
  32. There are only two ways this whole wars/terrorism issue will end.

    Option 1 :
    American’s find a way to get rid of Jewish control over our media and political discourse. If you haven’t figured it out yet, these wars have nothing to do with “terrorism”, “democracy”, “profit” , “oil” or any of the other explanations. They have to to do with Israel’s tribal supporters in the US manipulating the US into destroying/destabilizing Muslim countries to benefit Israel. End of story.

    Option 2:
    Muslims countries themselves get their own house in order. And the only way they will ever do that is to realize that the cancer at the heart of the muslim world is the Saudi Royal Family. The Saudi Royal family are active collaborators with Israel and their tribal supporters in the US/Europe. A quarter of the world’s population are muslims. No matter how much scheming Jews do through their surrogates in the US, they cannot bully around that many people – if those people have leaders who are interested in their welfare. And right now Saudi Arabia does ALL of the dirty work in the middle-east and elsewhere.

    This is a comment forum and I don’t have the space nor desire to expand on this any more.
    But let me wrap it up by linking my points to this article/issue.

    Notice this “ban” does not include Saudi Arabia. The 15 of the 19 hijackers in 9/11 were Saudi’s. Saudi Arabia is the prime financier of terrorist groups. They are also the ones who have spent billions spreading Wahhabism among the muslim world. So why exactly isn’t saudi arabia not on this list? After readying option1 and option2 it should be obvious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anna
    Let's consider the Saudi situation more objectively. Saudi Arabia has suffered more terrorist attacks on its own soil in 2015 than it did in the 11 previous years combined--many of these claimed by ISIS. The leader of ISIS in 2014 through 2016 called for (declared a "fatwa" against) the Saudi Royal family. Osama bin Laden despised that family, who had kicked him out of the country, revoked his citizenship and closed his accounts in the early-mid 90s. (OBL had grown infuriated when the Saudis allowed American troops on "sacred soil" for the invasion of Iraq in 1991). As for the Wahhabi nonsense, blaming a religion or an interpretation thereof is way too vague to stand as a behavioral psychology argument. Further to this point, it is important to keep in mind that most of these jihadi recruits know squat about Islam (it later turns out when those arrested are interrogated) or they "find God" hours before they are sent to flying school.

    Also, the 15 of the 19 story is only half told. OBL wanted to humiliate the Saudi royal family and therefore personally recruited Saudis representing the provinces of that country, or a concentration of those provinces. There were hundreds if not thousands of volunteers for this mission. That does not change the fact that these were still Saudi, but it is a different context than to imply that the royal family set them up.
    , @Discard
    Executive orders are always pursuant to an already existing law. Did you think that the POTUS just makes it up? This oEO, if you care to read it, states at the top which law is being enforced. The law in question was the Terrorist Travel Protection Act of 2015, signed by Mr Obama in December of that year. That law applies only to certain countries, which are listed. Saudi Arabia is not on Mr Obama's list, so President Trump has no legislative authority to include them.
  33. Giuseppe says:

    A Manhattan, straight up, hold the bitters, but give me the dashiest dash of Chuck Schumer’s tears.

    Read More
  34. Shorter Cockburn – “Islam is a religion of peace, and if you upset them they’ll kill you”

    Read More
  35. @TheJester
    The Muslim ban wasn't broad enough. Regardless, if what Trump ordered creates an identity crisis for Muslims ... all I can say is, "Bring it on!" We need not care what Muslims think or feel with respect to America defining and defending its own interests and backing it up with military force.

    With respect to Muslim retaliation, it will be interesting what "soup" Trump and Putin are making to bring a quick end to radical Islam and Jihad. Certainly confining Muslims to MENA is a first step in the right direction. If they are over there, they cannot be doing damage over here.

    As the Europeans have slowly learned from their most recent Muslim invasion, Islam is an alien and hostile religion buttressed by an alien and hostile culture. (Their ancestors knew this explicitly but somehow in the last thousand years they forgot ... .) The United States need not make the same mistake.

    Islam is an alien and hostile religion buttressed by an alien and hostile culture. (Their ancestors knew this explicitly but somehow in the last thousand years they forgot…)

    Well, Europeans have been living side by side with Muslims for centuries, Islam is hardly alien to Europe the way it is to the US. Russia is 10% Muslim, and Orthodox Christians and Muslims mostly get along fine. The British, French and Spanish Empires all had large numbers of Muslim subjects. There have been mosques in Vienna since the Habsburgs in their infinite foolishness decided to incorporate Bosnia and all its Muslims into the Empire. Europeans mostly got along fine with Muslims in the Imperial days, even admired them. The British generally tended to favor Muslims in their colonies over pagans in Africa or Hindus in India. The big difference between now and then is that in the old days Europeans knew how to divide and conquer. Muslims are not a threat if you keep them disunited and angry at someone else. Instead Europe and the USA have accidentally conspired to give the Muslim world a single unifying cause (Israel) and to allow a single strain of Islamic thought access to the financial capital to dominate (Saudi Wahabism). Take away the oil money and radical Islam would diminish rather quickly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Peter,

    Some excellent points. I feel that many Europeans have forgotten their history including where the French or British would ally with the Ottomans for instance in order to undermine each other. I mean the last hopes of the French invasion of Egypt and the Levant were literally sunk by the Brits at the Nile Delta.

    Habsburgs in their infinite foolishness decided to incorporate Bosnia and all its Muslims into the Empire
     
    Actually, they knew what they were doing - Bosnians and Albanians often were the best soldiers and officers in the Ottoman armies, they were basically like leaderless samurais:
    "Feared by their enemies, respected by their comrades for their fighting spirit, the Bosnian-Herzegovinian troops were a reliable component of the Austro-Hungarian Army until the end of the First World War."
    https://www.militaria.at/Book.aspx?book=9009000&Language=en

    Hapsburgs also had a knack for adapting a millet-like system for their Bosnians to make things run smoothly:
    "As for legal jurisdiction, allowance was made for the specific situation. As citizens of the Habsburg Monarchy, Bosnian Muslims were subject to Austro-Hungarian civil law, but questions of family and inheritance law were left to the sharia. The Muslim legal scholars were not only appointed and paid by the Austro-Hungarian administration but also constrained to cooperate with the civil jurisdiction, also in terms of court procedure."
    http://ww1.habsburger.net/en/chapters/sharia-under-double-eagle-austria-hungary-and-bosnian-muslims

    Take away the oil money and radical Islam would diminish rather quickly.
     
    Not that simple - but that would certainly help immensely!

    Peace.
  36. Patrick Cockburn has worked, reported and lived in this region for decades. Perhaps he is closer to the truth than some who reject everything he has to offer us in the way of commentary. All this bluster, cant and flummery is a distraction and reeks of impotence.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    And maybe he did just pull it out of his ass. When you post this:

    Like leaders everywhere Isis commanders will wonder how unhinged Trump really is.

    It is obvious you are not writing based on any fact on the ground or interviews with those ISIS commanders, it is just speculation based on your own hatred of Trump. Like the nonsense I heard when somebody said "They hate us for our freedom".

    Yes our support for Israel and our troops in their country are valid reasons for the Muslims to take up arms and want to kill us but us not letting them into the US would be about 1,000,000th down the list.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    Patrick Cockburn has worked, reported and lived in this region for decades.
     
    which implies in turn that he can't possibly believe the various things he is saying.


    Perhaps he is closer to the truth than some who reject everything he has to offer us in the way of commentary.
     
    The guy works for MI6 or whatever Intel Agency. He's a professional disinfo agent. It's hardly much a "conspiracy theory". Just look at the revelations of somebody like Udo Ulfkotte on this sort of question. He's a big-name journalist who is a conduit for disinfo. What you get from a guy like this are all the synthetic narratives that they are pushing.
  37. @MEexpert

    How come there is no concern that – you know – Christians might start terrorizing Muslims if pushed too far?
     
    Christians are already terrorizing Muslims. What do you think US is doing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria?

    Christians are already terrorizing Muslims. What do you think US is doing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria?

    There’s nothing Christian about the US’s victim cult and Jewish based governance.

    The US is Bolshevik, and is anti-Christian, and is emulating Israeli ideology.

    The similarities between the US and Israel are striking:

    1. US-Israel both are national democracies with no effective constitutional limits on their national government law making power. Government powers are based on the PC whims of whomever is appointed to the Supreme Court.

    2. US-Israel are dominated by an organized, super-majority of voters who self-identify as a victim cult, forever oppressed by Nazi. This victim cult is recognized by the central government as a bunch of entitled protected classes. This victim cult promotes itself as being vehemently anti-Nazi.

    3. US-Israel define a Nazi profile as being white-gentile-Christian-straight-gringo-healthy-independent-militia-occidental-male

    4. US-Israel have 2-party systems that dominate national politics

    5. US Republicans = conservative Judaism = Israeli Likud Party

    6. US Democrats = secular Judaism = Israeli Labor Party

    7. US-Israel have a super-majority of protected victim class voters, special people that demand and receive thousands of class based federal entitlements by law in exchange for their votes.

    8. US-Israel are fascist and aggressive proponents of the American-Israeli protected victim class supremacy scheme in the world

    9. US-Israel coordinate their attacks and sabotage of Israeli enemies in the middle east

    10. US-Israel coordinate their black operations

    11. US-Israel share their military technology and intelligence

    12. US-Israel are international pariah states for the same reasons

    13. US-Israel have biased immigration policies in favor of victim cult people.

    14. US-Israel cover for each others transgressions in the UN

    15. US-Israel military and foreign aid agreements are heavily biased toward Israeli enrichment

    16. US-Israel relationship is such that Israel can attack the US Navy, and be rewarded for doing so (USS Liberty)

    17. US-Israel is loaded with Judeo-Christian aka Jewish Messiah ideologues, people that venerate Jewish Old Testament morality.

    Read More
  38. Marcus says:

    Not being allowed into a country they hate will push them over the edge? Ok

    Read More
  39. Ben Frank says:

    Your Personal ‘Junk Food Ban’ Will Only Lead to More Weight Gain.

    NOT.

    Read More
  40. virgile says:

    Trump’s ban is a warning to Saudi Arabia , Kuwait and Qatar

    I see Trump’s ban on ‘refugees’ mostly moslems as a warning to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar to stop supporting ISIS and other Islamists extremists or face the same fate if they continue.
    I guess these countries are becoming very nervous as much more than the other 7 countries, they are the source of the spreading of terrorist ideologies in the USA.
    Another imminent measure Trump is planning is the financial control of transfers from these countries ‘ Islamic charities’ and other propaganda Islamist organisations

    If this ban results in discouraging these commercial ‘allies’ to allow support to extremists in the USA and else where, the annoyance of some Moslems at the border is worth i.

    Read More
  41. MarkinLA says:
    @Robert Magill
    Patrick Cockburn has worked, reported and lived in this region for decades. Perhaps he is closer to the truth than some who reject everything he has to offer us in the way of commentary. All this bluster, cant and flummery is a distraction and reeks of impotence.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    And maybe he did just pull it out of his ass. When you post this:

    Like leaders everywhere Isis commanders will wonder how unhinged Trump really is.

    It is obvious you are not writing based on any fact on the ground or interviews with those ISIS commanders, it is just speculation based on your own hatred of Trump. Like the nonsense I heard when somebody said “They hate us for our freedom”.

    Yes our support for Israel and our troops in their country are valid reasons for the Muslims to take up arms and want to kill us but us not letting them into the US would be about 1,000,000th down the list.

    Read More
  42. Avery says:
    @MEexpert

    How come there is no concern that – you know – Christians might start terrorizing Muslims if pushed too far?
     
    Christians are already terrorizing Muslims. What do you think US is doing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria?

    {How come there is no concern that – you know – Christians might start terrorizing Muslims if pushed too far?}[Avery]
    {Christians are already terrorizing Muslims.}[MEexpert]

    This is the sort of thing I was referring to, when I wrote my original post.
    The post predates the tragic event, but what I meant is that at some point, people like this will start doing to innocent Muslims what Islamic terrorists have been doing to innocent Christians (….and other innocent Muslims, of course).

    [Canada shooting suspect rented apartment close to Quebec mosque -reports ]

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-shooting-suspect-rented-apartment-close-to-quebec-mosque-reports/ar-AAmof9J?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

    {Bissonnette, the sole suspect in Sunday night’s shooting, was charged on Monday with six counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder with a restricted weapon. Police said he acted alone.}
    {Bissonnette did not hide his hostility toward Muslims during his long interrogation by police, Montreal’s La Presse newspaper, quoting a source close to the investigation. He was also interested in guns, and practiced shooting at a local club near the provincial capital, La Presse reported.}

    Read More
  43. @Avery
    {Donald Trump’s travel ban on refugees and visitors from seven Muslim countries entering the US makes a terrorist attack on Americans at home or abroad more rather than less likely. }

    Total nonsense, and easily debunked.

    Japan does not take any refugees, and has an immigrant population less than 2%.
    Their Muslim population is estimated at about 70,000.
    In a population of ~130 million.
    Japan had one terrorist attack by a home-grown cult many years ago.
    That's it.

    Europe had no Muslim terrorist problems, until large numbers of Muslims moved in.
    US has had mass shootings and such, but terrorist acts (aside from Oklahoma City bombing) have been the work of Muslim immigrants or their progeny born in US.

    And the fact that most Muslims in US and Europe are peaceful is irrelevant.
    More and more Muslims in a Christian country means a larger and larger pool of young recruits to Islamic terrorist causes.

    US has had mass shootings and such, but terrorist acts (aside from Oklahoma City bombing) have been the work of Muslim immigrants or their progeny born in US.

    No, you’re misinformed. The events in question have all been false flags and hoaxes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    No, you’re misinformed. The events in question have all been false flags and hoaxes.

     

    True.

    Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban’ Will Only Lead to More Terrorist Attacks
     
    A true statist believer would likely think that, but then one should also consider the more likely possibility that there will be more false flags and it will now be easier to blame them on "terrorist attacks."
  44. Talha says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    Islam is an alien and hostile religion buttressed by an alien and hostile culture. (Their ancestors knew this explicitly but somehow in the last thousand years they forgot...)

    Well, Europeans have been living side by side with Muslims for centuries, Islam is hardly alien to Europe the way it is to the US. Russia is 10% Muslim, and Orthodox Christians and Muslims mostly get along fine. The British, French and Spanish Empires all had large numbers of Muslim subjects. There have been mosques in Vienna since the Habsburgs in their infinite foolishness decided to incorporate Bosnia and all its Muslims into the Empire. Europeans mostly got along fine with Muslims in the Imperial days, even admired them. The British generally tended to favor Muslims in their colonies over pagans in Africa or Hindus in India. The big difference between now and then is that in the old days Europeans knew how to divide and conquer. Muslims are not a threat if you keep them disunited and angry at someone else. Instead Europe and the USA have accidentally conspired to give the Muslim world a single unifying cause (Israel) and to allow a single strain of Islamic thought access to the financial capital to dominate (Saudi Wahabism). Take away the oil money and radical Islam would diminish rather quickly.

    Hey Peter,

    Some excellent points. I feel that many Europeans have forgotten their history including where the French or British would ally with the Ottomans for instance in order to undermine each other. I mean the last hopes of the French invasion of Egypt and the Levant were literally sunk by the Brits at the Nile Delta.

    Habsburgs in their infinite foolishness decided to incorporate Bosnia and all its Muslims into the Empire

    Actually, they knew what they were doing – Bosnians and Albanians often were the best soldiers and officers in the Ottoman armies, they were basically like leaderless samurais:
    “Feared by their enemies, respected by their comrades for their fighting spirit, the Bosnian-Herzegovinian troops were a reliable component of the Austro-Hungarian Army until the end of the First World War.”

    https://www.militaria.at/Book.aspx?book=9009000&Language=en

    Hapsburgs also had a knack for adapting a millet-like system for their Bosnians to make things run smoothly:
    “As for legal jurisdiction, allowance was made for the specific situation. As citizens of the Habsburg Monarchy, Bosnian Muslims were subject to Austro-Hungarian civil law, but questions of family and inheritance law were left to the sharia. The Muslim legal scholars were not only appointed and paid by the Austro-Hungarian administration but also constrained to cooperate with the civil jurisdiction, also in terms of court procedure.”

    http://ww1.habsburger.net/en/chapters/sharia-under-double-eagle-austria-hungary-and-bosnian-muslims

    Take away the oil money and radical Islam would diminish rather quickly.

    Not that simple – but that would certainly help immensely!

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    "Some excellent points. I feel that many Europeans have forgotten their history including where the French or British would ally with the Ottomans for instance in order to undermine each other..."

    No, Peter's points weren't excellent at all, and the British and French alliances with the Ottomans were purely alliances of convenience. Some art lecturer called Jerry Brotton tried to make out ten years back that Queen Elizabeth I telling her Ambassador to make nicey-nicey to the Grande Porte (hoping that Suleyman would keep Spanish galleys occupied in the Med as the Armada loomed) proved that we'd always been allied with EastAsia and that Turkey should enter the EU with all speed. Misuse of history, swallowed whole by globalists for political reasons.

    Here's part of the Special Liturgy of 1565, by Elizabeth's command a compulsory part of all English church services for the duration of the Siege of Malta (defended by the Catholic powers from whom England was estranged).


    "O Almighty and everlasting God, our heavenly Father; we thy disobedient and rebellious children, now by thy just judgment sore afflicted, and in great danger to be oppressed, by thine and our sworn and most deadly enemies the Turks, Infidels, and Miscreants, do make humble suit to the throne of thy grace, for thy mercy, and aid against the same our mortal enemies: for though we do profess the name of thy only Son Christ our Saviour, yet through our manifold sins and wickedness we have most justly deserved so much of thy wrath and indignation, that we can not but say, O Lord correct us in thy mercy and not in thy fury. Better it is for us to fall into thy hands, than into the hands of men, and especially into the hands of Turks and Infidels thy professed enemies, who now invade thine inheritance. Against thee, O Lord, have we sinned, and transgressed thy commandments: against Turks, Infidels, and other enemies of the Gospel of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, have we not offended, but only in this, that we acknowledge thee, the eternal Father, and thy only Son our Redeemer, with the Holy Ghost, the comforter, to be the only true Almighty and everliving God. For if we would deny and blaspheme thy most holy name, forsake the Gospel of thy dear Son, embrace false religion, commit horrible Idolatries, and give ourselves to all impure, wicked, and abominable life, as they do; the devil, the world, the Turk, and all other thine enemies would be at peace with us, according to the saying of thy Son Christ: If you were of the world, the world would love his own. But therefore hate they us, because we love thee: therefore persecute they us, because we acknowledge thee, God the Father, and Jesus Christ thy Son, whom thou hast sent. The Turk goeth about to set up, to extol, and to magnify that wicked monster and dammed soul Mohumet above thy dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ, whom we in heart believe, and with mouth confess, to be our only Saviour and redeemer."
     
    A year later the compulsory prayers were similar, but for the defence of Hungary.

    Almost exactly three hundred years on, the British press was reporting from Orthodox Bulgaria on the massacres of Christians by the Ottoman Empire.

    "Nothing has as yet been said of the Turks that I do not now believe; nothing could be said of them that I should not think probable and likely. There is, it seems, a point in atrocity beyond which discrimination is impossible ..."

  45. the great success of Mohammed Atta and his eighteen hijackers was

    You know, when somebody like this Cockburn just keeps peddling this bullshit, year after year, it can’t be an honest mistake. Something like this is such a basic litmus test in terms of identifying who is for real and who is a disinfo agent.

    When you’ve got this good a litmus test, it is silly not to use it. I really wish Ron Unz would apply the litmus test and realize that mirroring this kind of disinfo agent detracts from his webzine’s value.

    I have basically zero doubt that Patrick Cockburn is an Intel Agency asset. Almost everything he writes is designed to bolster whatever synthetic narratives these people are putting out. I do not believe that Cockburn is so stupid as to fall for this. He is clearly a disinfo agent.

    It was notorious that 15 out of 19 of the hijackers were Saudis,

    Yeah, still peddling that shit. Blow it out your ass, Cockburn. Hijackers… What hijackers?

    Osama bin Laden was a Saudi

    Uhh, yeah, and Lee Harvey Oswald was a Lutheran. So fuckin’ what…

    and the money for the operation came from private Saudi donors, but Saudi Arabia was given a free pass regardless of strong evidence of its complicity.

    Ah, the “28 pages” cookie crumb trail bullshit. Cockburn is still peddling that bullshit. Jayzuz…

    Read More
  46. @KenH

    The Trump administration justifies its action by claiming that it is only following lessons learned from 9/11 and the destruction of the Twin Towers. But it has learned exactly the wrong lesson: the great success of Mohammed Atta and his eighteen hijackers was not on the day that they and 3,000 others died, but when President George W Bush responded by leading the US into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that are still going on.
     
    Totally ass backwards. The proper lesson to draw is that Mohammed Atta and his lovely cohorts should never been allowed to step foot on U.S. soil. We hand out student visas to the third world like candy and some of these students have ulterior motives.

    Perhaps if the U.S. stopped being a universal nation (which it was never intended to be) and served the interests of its founding racial stock there would be no 9/11 and we wouldn't be having this debate.

    The proper lesson to draw is that Mohammed Atta and his lovely cohorts should never been allowed to step foot on U.S. soil.

    No, the first thing to realize is that Mohammed Atta and the rest of them never did shit. Period.

    If you disagree, then please outline the evidence that they did.

    Read More
  47. @Robert Magill
    Patrick Cockburn has worked, reported and lived in this region for decades. Perhaps he is closer to the truth than some who reject everything he has to offer us in the way of commentary. All this bluster, cant and flummery is a distraction and reeks of impotence.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Patrick Cockburn has worked, reported and lived in this region for decades.

    which implies in turn that he can’t possibly believe the various things he is saying.

    Perhaps he is closer to the truth than some who reject everything he has to offer us in the way of commentary.

    The guy works for MI6 or whatever Intel Agency. He’s a professional disinfo agent. It’s hardly much a “conspiracy theory”. Just look at the revelations of somebody like Udo Ulfkotte on this sort of question. He’s a big-name journalist who is a conduit for disinfo. What you get from a guy like this are all the synthetic narratives that they are pushing.

    Read More
  48. @Talha
    I don't agree with Mr. Cockburn on this - though I see where he is coming from. Muslims I have talked to don't necessarily see this change in policy as 'oppressive' - inconvenient, to be sure, but hardly 'oppressive'.

    Actually, more continuation of this crap is a more likely catalyst:
    http://m.thenational.ae/world/united-states/dozens-killed-in-us-special-forces-raid-on-yemen-village

    If we are tightening up the borders and even scrutinizing Muslims inside the US - both of which have some legitimacy in trying to tackle domestic terrorism...what the **** are we still bombing Yemen for???!!!

    Peace.

    If we are tightening up the borders and even scrutinizing Muslims inside the US – both of which have some legitimacy in trying to tackle domestic terrorism

    Wow, you are really surpassing yourself in the Uncle Talha department.

    One thing I am unclear on, though. You know much more about Islam than I do. I know that Islam (like Judaism) forbids the eating of pork. I know that.

    Does Islam forbid you from being such a complete and utter fuckhead? Now, granted, Judaism does not either have (as far as I ever was taught) an explicit commandment of: “Though shalt not be a fuckhead” but it is kind of culturally understood, I feel….

    what the **** are we still bombing Yemen for???!!!

    Oh, you actually believe that we were bombing Yemen in order to “fight terrorism”….

    You know, even if Islam (as I suspect) does not have the explicit commandment: “Thou shalt not be a fuckhead”, I would put it to you that you would do well to try to adhere more to that regardless. After all, Islam surely does not say: “Thou shalt be a fuckhead”, does it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    Shorter Revusky:

    "...fuckhead...fuckhead...fuckhead...fuckhead..."

    ...and this addressed to Talha of all people!
  49. @Giuseppe
    A Manhattan, straight up, hold the bitters, but give me the dashiest dash of Chuck Schumer's tears.

    I wouldn’t drink that if I were you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Giuseppe
    A little won't hurt. Progressive's tears are so sweet.
  50. Eagle Eye says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Such communal punishments vastly increase sympathy for Salafi-jihadi movements among the 1.6 billion Muslims who make up a quarter of the world’s population.
     
    Yes, collective punishment would do that, but how is this a 'punishment'? Visa restrictions and bans are common in the Arab states (also Iran, Pakistan). I don't think anyone interprets it as a 'punishment'...

    Muslims already established in the U.S. will get the message, LOUD AND CLEAR, that anti-American subversion will no longer be tolerated.

    To 97% of U.S. Muslims, this is a very welcome message. Meanwhile, the extremist 3% will at the very least lie low for a while. Organized da’wa (proselytizing) in prisons, among second-generation Muslim youth etc. will go on the back burner for some time and be less of a problem now that the adults are back in charge in DC.

    The majority of earlier and better integrated immigrants from the Muslim world have always cherished their good fortune in having escaped their Islam-addled countries of origin, and have no interest in encouraging further Islamization in the U.S. These immigrants mostly came to America before 2001 to live their own lives and enjoy the opportunities offered by their new home. They certainly never viewed themselves as jihadis sacrificing their lives to turn America into another Muslim land.

    Of course, many U.S. Muslims remain scared of murder and intimidation by an extremist but well-organized and well-funded minority. Just as serious to moderate Muslims is the risk of re-Islamization of second and third generation Muslims (mainly young men) by Saudi and Qatari-funded preachers and mosques.

    It is quite true that while there are moderate Muslims, there is NO doctrine of “moderate Islam.” There is a whole industry – quite well funded – of bare-faced liars misrepresenting Islam as a peaceful doctrine that is compatible with the U.S. Constitution and Western values.

    In sum, many U.S. Muslims have quietly decided to live as BAD MUSLIMS, ignoring the more extreme doctrines of their faith. However, they are understandably reluctant to risk assassination as “hypocrites” or outright apostates as mandated by mainstream Islam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    In sum, many U.S. Muslims have quietly decided to live as BAD MUSLIMS, ignoring the more extreme doctrines of their faith. However, they are understandably reluctant to risk assassination as “hypocrites” or outright apostates as mandated by mainstream Islam.

    The problem with having even these Muslims in the US is what I would call critical mass. As long as the percent of these Muslims is very low they will lie low. Let their percentage rise above a certain level and many will change on a dime given the higher state they will enjoy as "real" Muslims and not Dhimmi or untrustworthy converts.
    , @Talha
    Hey EE,

    that anti-American subversion will no longer be tolerated
     
    Nor should it be.

    have always cherished their good fortune
     
    They have actually - they feel quite blessed.

    and have no interest in encouraging further Islamization in the U.S.
     
    No, these are the same generation that has built the currently existing crop of mosques around the US and are handing off the baton within the next decade to the next generation.

    These immigrants mostly came to America before 2001 to live their own lives and enjoy the opportunities offered by their new home.
     
    Yup.

    many U.S. Muslims remain scared of murder and intimidation by an extremist but well-organized and well-funded minority
     
    Not really - if you have your ear to the ground in the Muslim community, the traditionalists have been gaining ground for the last decade or so. Salafi/Wahhabi style doctrine took a fairly big hit since the 90's - it's the random outliers that worry us most. The young guys who are not really connected to a mosque (sex, drugs rock and roll) and then have an about face and pick the wrong crew to take their Islam from. This is not new, West Point already knows this:
    "Both findings indicate that the majority of the foreign fighters had limited familiarity with the tenets of the Islamic faith. This is consistent with the findings from the CTC’s earlier report, which showed that very small numbers of foreign fighters reported having any religious education and that approximately 70% of fighters reported having a basic knowledge of Shari`a law. Given these findings, it seems that the ability of the foreign fighters to develop an emotional and cognitive attachment to the jihadi community is based on other factors, which may be more related to cultural and political dimensions of their identities as Muslims in non-Muslim societies than religious triggers. The ability of jihadi groups to recruit foreign fighters is thus based on creating a narrative that is focused on the ongoing deprivation of Muslims, both in specific Western polities, as well as in the international arena. While convincing them that joining the jihadi movement based on specific religious imperatives may be important, it seems to play a secondary role. Moreover, our findings also correspond with primary sources indicating that jihadi groups in general prefer to recruit individuals who have limited religious education since they are less capable of critically scrutinizing the jihadi narrative and ideology, in addition to being less familiar with contrasting Islamic schools of thought."
    https://www.ctc.usma.edu/v2/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Cradle-to-Grave2.pdf

    British intelligence has concluded the same:
    Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1


    by Saudi and Qatari-funded preachers and mosques
     
    I have lived around and attended dozens of mosques in the US and only knew of one that was foreign funded and they weren't shy about it:
    http://kingfahadmosque.org/

    Where are these funds? It would make our constant fundraising dinners a thing of the past.


    there is NO doctrine of “moderate Islam.”
     
    I don't even know what that means - do 'moderate Muslims' drink alcohol or eat pork or march in gay pride parades? Do they let their daughters dress like whores and get ogled by men at nightclubs? There is a traditional Sunni Orthodoxy going 14 centuries strong that represents 85-90% or the Muslims but I don't know what that means in terms of 'moderate'.

    There is a whole industry – quite well funded – of bare-faced liars misrepresenting Islam as a peaceful doctrine
     
    There is a whole industry – quite well funded – of bare-faced liars misrepresenting Islam as a warlike doctrine. And they are connected at the hip with Israeli-firsters - I guarantee.

    In sum, many U.S. Muslims have quietly decided to live as BAD MUSLIMS, ignoring the more extreme doctrines of their faith. However, they are understandably reluctant to risk assassination as “hypocrites” or outright apostates as mandated by mainstream Islam.
     
    No, to the contrary we are living according to our faith. My wife is a White convert and studying to become a certified scholar in the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. She is studying plenty of medieval texts like this one:
    http://kitaabun.com/shopping3/product_info.php?products_id=2828

    We're not ignoring any 'extreme' doctrines - the extremists are ignoring normative rulings of our tradition. We're supposed to live in non-Muslim lands according to the law of the land. These are old-school rulings for centuries:
    “The status of the Muslims who reside and are born in non-Muslim states is the reverse of the above non-Muslim status in a Muslim state: al-Muslim bi-dhimmati l-kâfir [a Muslim in the care of a non-Muslim state] and from our own Muslim and religious perspective, whether we like it or not, there are similarities to the status of a guest which should not be forgotten.”
    http://www.livingislam.org/maa/dcmm_e.html

    If this is the first time you're being exposed to it - not our fault - stop assuming the extremists have the correct interpretation.

    Peace.

    , @Seraphim
    That is the real message and must be welcomed. It does not go far enough. They should be requested to state that they would not ever seek to impose Sharia Law, halal food, burqas, never speak in favor of re-instauration of the Caliphate (de solidarization with organizations like Hizb ut-Tahrir), never speak of 'Islamophobia' whenever someone criticizes aspects of Muslim's belief system,or Muslims' misdemeanours, never rally to protest against criticism of Mahomed.
  51. TWS says:

    Let the terrorists in or they will terrorize us. Somehow, I don’t think I’ll follow that logic. Tell me again how keeping out people who cannot or will not eliminate the dangerous and insane in their own societies and actively support their dangerous and insane actions is a bad thing.

    Read More
  52. MarkinLA says:
    @Eagle Eye
    Muslims already established in the U.S. will get the message, LOUD AND CLEAR, that anti-American subversion will no longer be tolerated.

    To 97% of U.S. Muslims, this is a very welcome message. Meanwhile, the extremist 3% will at the very least lie low for a while. Organized da'wa (proselytizing) in prisons, among second-generation Muslim youth etc. will go on the back burner for some time and be less of a problem now that the adults are back in charge in DC.

    The majority of earlier and better integrated immigrants from the Muslim world have always cherished their good fortune in having escaped their Islam-addled countries of origin, and have no interest in encouraging further Islamization in the U.S. These immigrants mostly came to America before 2001 to live their own lives and enjoy the opportunities offered by their new home. They certainly never viewed themselves as jihadis sacrificing their lives to turn America into another Muslim land.

    Of course, many U.S. Muslims remain scared of murder and intimidation by an extremist but well-organized and well-funded minority. Just as serious to moderate Muslims is the risk of re-Islamization of second and third generation Muslims (mainly young men) by Saudi and Qatari-funded preachers and mosques.

    It is quite true that while there are moderate Muslims, there is NO doctrine of "moderate Islam." There is a whole industry - quite well funded - of bare-faced liars misrepresenting Islam as a peaceful doctrine that is compatible with the U.S. Constitution and Western values.

    In sum, many U.S. Muslims have quietly decided to live as BAD MUSLIMS, ignoring the more extreme doctrines of their faith. However, they are understandably reluctant to risk assassination as "hypocrites" or outright apostates as mandated by mainstream Islam.

    In sum, many U.S. Muslims have quietly decided to live as BAD MUSLIMS, ignoring the more extreme doctrines of their faith. However, they are understandably reluctant to risk assassination as “hypocrites” or outright apostates as mandated by mainstream Islam.

    The problem with having even these Muslims in the US is what I would call critical mass. As long as the percent of these Muslims is very low they will lie low. Let their percentage rise above a certain level and many will change on a dime given the higher state they will enjoy as “real” Muslims and not Dhimmi or untrustworthy converts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {The problem with......... not Dhimmi or untrustworthy converts.}

    Correct.

    Anyone who doubts that, needs to take a close look at what is happening in Western Europe*.
    Beyond some critical mass, the radical Islamists will start imposing themselves on the host communities. The peaceful 'BAD MUSLIMS' will go along out of fear or apathy.

    On the other hand if those same (crypto) radical Islamists are surrounded by non-Muslims (e.g. Christians), they will not dare do anything radical, because there will be a counter reaction.

    It is sad, but true: beyond some number, even those 'BAD' Muslims who want to be Americanized and live their lives as Americans will not be allowed by the larger Muslim community.
    Examples are the (too) many tragic incidents where young Muslim women were savagely murdered by their kin for not being Muslim enough. Even with their relatively low numbers, these psychopaths have no compunction doing that sort of thing here in US. US law will punish them now, but there was British law that punished that sort of thing at one time also.
    But today, Sharia law is given equal weight in some parts of England**.
    Imagine that: the land of Magna Carta ruled by Sharia.

    If nothing as done about it, how long before Sharia law establishes itself here in US?

    ------
    * Here you go: coming to Anytown, USA near where you live.
    [Muslims in East London: Violence, Racism, Bigotry and Hooliganism]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMZe5hXodQg


    ** http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sharia-in-the-uk-the-courts-in-the-shadow-of-british-law-offering-rough-justice-for-muslim-women-a6761221.html
    {Around 30 sharia councils exist in the UK, giving Islamic divorce certificates and advice on other aspects of religious law}
  53. End the wars, end the refugee problem for Europe and America.
    End the wars, end the terrorist tactics facing America.

    Mass immigration at a time of reduced economic circumstances and the lowest labor participation in the workforce since before World War II, can only destabilize the country.

    Never before has leadership been so addled as to allow significant immigration from those countries where they are engaged in war. You would think they neither want the wars to be either won or ever end.

    Read More
  54. Talha says:
    @Krollchem
    The raid was against al-Qaeda in Yemen who have been allowed to expand due to Saudi attacks on the Yemen army and Shai fighters:
    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/01/29/spare-us-the-theatrics/

    I agree that the whack-a-mole method against Salafist terrorists will not work, BUT this is the only tool that President Trump has now. Ultimately he will have to shut down the Salafist/Wahhabist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism) religious university in Medina and shutdown all Salafist mosques in the US. I trust you understand French and offer this video that explains the threat:
    Colloque du CF2R sur l'idéologie wahhabite - Partie 1 (1 of 7)
    http://www.stratpol.com/colloque-c2fr-wahhabisme-part-1

    Ultimately, sanctions against Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and the other gulf states will be required to force them to renounce the Salafist ideology. The main problem is that the US political class (all parties) must be purged of all those bribed by these rich Salafist states. The Trump family will suffer economically as they have four properties in Saudi Arabia and a couple more in UAE!

    Trump will also have to face almost all of the EU political class as they have also been bought and paid for by the Salafist states.

    In the end "Winter is Coming" whether Trump succeeds or not:
    https://forecastingintelligence.org/2016/07/14/winter-is-coming/

    Hey KC,

    Few things…

    The raid was against al-Qaeda in Yemen

    I give as much credence to official statements from the Trump administration as I did with Obama’s in this regard. But, let’s assume it was al-Qaeda. We are already beefing up our border and immigration security and you stated that this whack-a-mole policy is not going to work, so…what the **** are we bombing Yemen for?

    this is the only tool that President Trump has now

    I disagree. He can and should de-escalate – big time. You mentioned that the reason certain groups are growing in Yemen is because of the civil war and instability which is fueled by Saudi war-making. They get their munitions from us and the Brits (which work with the hardware we sold them) – we can cut off the supply tomorrow if we wanted.

    Ultimately he will have to shut down the Salafist/Wahhabist religious university in Medina

    Again, he should stay out of any internal theological issues within the Muslim world. Many of the top Salafi/Wahhabi scholars have come out strong against extremist groups like Daesh. It’s usually the young hot-heads that know just enough to be volatile that cause the most problems.
    Going in for one side will cause the Salafi/Wahhabi banner to be presented as the rallying cry against Western imperialism. It is completely counterproductive – more meddling is not what we need.

    and shutdown all Salafist mosques in the US

    If the people of the US want to make restrictions on the Bill of Rights, it is their prerogative. Russia also monitors and intervenes in persons or mosques that are deemed to be potentially subversive.

    I trust you understand French and offer this video that explains the threat

    I don’t, but as a Muslim, I am quite aware of the threat of Salafi/Wahhabi extremists who have been butchering us like there’s no tomorrow:
    http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMIReport1May31October2015.pdf

    And I’m also aware of the nuances between groups like Daesh and run-of-the-mill non-violent Muslims that espouse Salafi or Wahhabi teachings.

    Ultimately, sanctions against Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and the other gulf states will be required to force them to renounce the Salafist ideology.

    Again, counterproductive. You are looking at it through some kind of Cold War lens – did this work with Cuba or did they double down? If one really wants to hurt them then; 1) stop their ability to invest in or benefit economically from the West and 2) stop supplying them with weapon systems which they can pass on to extremist proxies.

    In the end “Winter is Coming”

    Though I’m a big fan of the book series – I do not look forward to any news of catastrophic collapse, but maybe a return to more moderate means of living is best for us all in the long run, especially if all the ‘progress’ is built on an unstable and unsustainable foundation in the first place…
    “It is right of God that He lowers whatever raises itself in the world.” – reported in Bukhari

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Sorry, should be:
    "It is the right of God that He lowers whatever raises itself in the world."

    His world, His decision; we only live in it.
    , @krollchem
    “so…what the **** are we bombing Yemen for?”

    The attack on al-Qaeda in the Saudi controlled al Bayda Governorate was planned under the Obama administration and ordered by Trump and was carried out by US Navy Seal team 6 and UAE special forces (Erik Prince’s private army?)
    http://wtkr.com/2017/02/01/inside-the-yemen-raid-women-al-qaeda-fighters-surprised-us-forces/amp/
    http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mercenaries-charge-uae-forces-fighting-yemen-764309832
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/world/middleeast/15prince.html

    Further complicating this conflict is that Saudi Arabia supports of Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi as UAE has been supporting Khaled Bahah which explains why Saudi and UAE forces have attacked each other occasionally.

    The UAE is also now allied with Egypt and General Haftar in attacking the Operation Dawn Islamist militias fighting for control of Tripoli. The Obama administration was apparently “Furious After Source Of "Mystery" Libya Bombing Raids Revealed”
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-25/us-furious-after-source-mystery-libya-bombing-raids-revealed
    https://warisboring.com/erik-princes-mercenaries-are-bombing-libya-88fcb8e55292#.2qjle1egk

    Apparently, Trump didn’t let Obama in on the plan! Stay tuned for a major Middle East shift in alliances.

    Under Trump, I doubt that the US will be bombing the Houthi’s and allied Sunni Muslims who have a legitimate right to self-rule free of the Saudi puppet Hadi. I would prefer that the US pressure Saudi Arabia to stop their war of aggression against the Houthi’s and provide humanitarian aid to Yemen. This may take time as Trump is also facing the fact that Yemen has oil reserves that the Saudis and Western oil companies would like to get their hands on. He may have to fire certain cabinet members and threaten western allies in order to weaken the Saudi Salafist/Wahhabist ideology spreading throughout the world.

    Adding to Saudi Arabia’s woes is that their oil reserves are being depleted and the water cut increased. Already Saudi Arabia has added a VAP tax across the kingdom
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/31/saudi-arabia-tax-approved-oil-revenues-slump.

    Saudi Arabia may ultimately break up, freeing northeast Saudia Arabia to the Shia residents who can then engage in self-rule free of the corrupt and evil Saudi regime.
    , @Krollchem
    “They get their munitions from us and the Brits (which work with the hardware we sold them) – we can cut off the supply tomorrow if we wanted”

    The US “Merchants of death” will try to oppose Trump in the cut off the flow of arms to the Saudis for money. Remember that Trump met, and agrees with with Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard that we must stop supporting terrorists (remember the CIA trained and equipped over five thousand fighters with immediately joined al-Qaeda) https://www.f3nws.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-calls-on-us-govt-to-stop-supporting-terrorists-after-meeting-syria-civilians-assad-FBeTKC

    She subsequently submitted a bill to stop aid the terrorists and joined in a fact finding tour in Syria with Dennis Kucinich, in opposition to certain Jewish groups: http://video.foxnews.com/v/5297708217001/?#sp=show-clips

    If Trump can cuts off arms shipments from the US, all European countries (UK, Poland, Ukraine, France, Germany, etc.) will step in and make up the difference. Cooperation with Russia in taking out al-Qaeda/al-Nusra/Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and ISIS in Syria and Iraq combined with the US hopefully pulling their back from the Baltic states, Poland and Ukraine should also throw the EU states into disarray.

    Remember that the EU has four presidents and none of them are elected! If he is smart, Trump can expose the EU as the dictatorship it is to discredit it. Perhaps, the coming Brexit hard exit and the National Front gains in the French election effort may result in the breakup of the EU into states that can then be pressured to stop arms sales to radical Islamic groups.
    , @Krollchem
    “I disagree. He can and should de-escalate”

    Trump is attempting a Taft Republican strategy of nationalism and not globalism which is reflected in widespread opposition by EU countries and the Democratic party. Trump appears to recognize the crimes of the Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan/Bush I, Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, Obama/Clinton II regimes in creating destruction in the Middle East and North Africa for oil profits.

    Trump recognizes that part of this effort requires wiping out ISIS and al-Qaeda (al-Nusra, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham), and the 57 flavors that recently joined them in Syria. and will carry out that mission. Remember that terrorists from 96 countries are carrying out the attacks in Syria and Iraq and comprise over 2/3s of the fighters.
    , @krollchem
    “Again, he should stay out of any internal theological issues within the Muslim world. Many of the top Salafi/Wahhabi scholars have come out strong against extremist groups like Daesh”

    Wrong. The head of the Salafist/Wahhabist religious university in Medina has called to elimination of non-believers worldwide. Thus it is the very leadership of this extreme ideology that is the problem. Remember that Saudi Arabia spends almost as much on spreading their ideology as they do on the military.

    Sheikh ‘Aadel Al-Kalbani, former imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, stated in 2014 that “ISIS is a true product of Salafism, and we must deal with it with full transparency.”
    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/11/senior-saudi-salafi-cleric-the-islamic-state-is-a-true-product-of-salafism

    He is perhaps the most tolerant Salafist Iman in Suadi Arabia but still considers all Shiite clerics as heretics (what must he think of Alawites? )
    https://en.europenews.dk/Sheikh-Kalbani-All-Shiite-clerics-are-heretics-97993.html

    In Saudi Arabia, half the population of 18 million sees Wahabism as oppressive including some Sunni muslims as well as all Shia muslims in Saudi Arabia. Islamic University of Medina reserves 85 per cent of the places for foreigners, further accelerating the propagation of this fanatical sect,

    There are also anti-Saudi Wahabist who consist of many of the ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorists
    Salafists also consider moderate muslims to be infidels and Wahhabism is considered as a austere vile intolerant sect by the majority of Muslims. Salafists are also dominant in Qatar and significant in Tunisia, Somalia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Dubai and spreading worldwide including even Iran
    , @krollchem
    “Muslims I have talked to don’t necessarily see this change in policy as ‘oppressive’ – inconvenient, to be sure, but hardly ‘oppressive’”

    Agreed. However, I object to the Jewish exemption to the Executive Order, which makes the order potentially illegal , except half the US supreme court in Jewish (a Zionist Jews have also been recently shown to be a terrorist in Canada)

    Jewish governance predominates in the US with almost all US political leaders paying homage to Israel on paid visits as soon as they get elected. In addition, almost all MP in the UK must join the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI):
    "Taking Down" British Officials-Israel conspires against the Mother of Parliaments
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/taking-down-british-officials/

    See also comment 28 by Joe Franklin for a litany of issues with Zionism.

    All this conflict between the Abraham sourced religions leads me to pantheism with a twist of Druid (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/) and Daoism Satori (Watts and Suzuki).
    , @krollchem
    "I do not look forward to any news of catastrophic collapse, but maybe a return to more moderate means of living is best for us all in the long run"

    My comment "Winter is Coming" refers to the Club of Rome System Dynamics study of civilization collapse. I would hope for a catabolic collapse to a more sustainable system as proposed by John Michael Greer
    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-flight-to-ephemeral.html
    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2012/02/trajectory-of-empires.html
    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/01/future-that-wasnt-part-two.html

    In the meantime the US will suffer from what Toynbee calls warbands, which may also be an accurate represention of Al-Qaeda and ISIS
    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2012/11/on-border.html

    As for Trump and posters who claim peak oil is a myth, they do not understand EROEI
    https://ourfiniteworld.com/2016/11/17/the-energy-problem-behind-trumps-election/
    http://ourfiniteworld.com/2015/08/26/deflationary-collapse-ahead/
  55. Oh, please! If we will just be nice to them they will leave us alone, or maybe only rape our women and lead us off to slavery in chains. Shut up, Cockburn. We want these primitives out of the West and it may as well start with that greasy, terrorist/supporting mayor of London.

    Read More
  56. Avery says:
    @MarkinLA
    In sum, many U.S. Muslims have quietly decided to live as BAD MUSLIMS, ignoring the more extreme doctrines of their faith. However, they are understandably reluctant to risk assassination as “hypocrites” or outright apostates as mandated by mainstream Islam.

    The problem with having even these Muslims in the US is what I would call critical mass. As long as the percent of these Muslims is very low they will lie low. Let their percentage rise above a certain level and many will change on a dime given the higher state they will enjoy as "real" Muslims and not Dhimmi or untrustworthy converts.

    {The problem with……… not Dhimmi or untrustworthy converts.}

    Correct.

    Anyone who doubts that, needs to take a close look at what is happening in Western Europe*.
    Beyond some critical mass, the radical Islamists will start imposing themselves on the host communities. The peaceful ‘BAD MUSLIMS’ will go along out of fear or apathy.

    On the other hand if those same (crypto) radical Islamists are surrounded by non-Muslims (e.g. Christians), they will not dare do anything radical, because there will be a counter reaction.

    It is sad, but true: beyond some number, even those ‘BAD’ Muslims who want to be Americanized and live their lives as Americans will not be allowed by the larger Muslim community.
    Examples are the (too) many tragic incidents where young Muslim women were savagely murdered by their kin for not being Muslim enough. Even with their relatively low numbers, these psychopaths have no compunction doing that sort of thing here in US. US law will punish them now, but there was British law that punished that sort of thing at one time also.
    But today, Sharia law is given equal weight in some parts of England**.
    Imagine that: the land of Magna Carta ruled by Sharia.

    If nothing as done about it, how long before Sharia law establishes itself here in US?

    ——
    * Here you go: coming to Anytown, USA near where you live.
    [Muslims in East London: Violence, Racism, Bigotry and Hooliganism]

    ** http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sharia-in-the-uk-the-courts-in-the-shadow-of-british-law-offering-rough-justice-for-muslim-women-a6761221.html
    {Around 30 sharia councils exist in the UK, giving Islamic divorce certificates and advice on other aspects of religious law}

    Read More
  57. Talha says:
    @Eagle Eye
    Muslims already established in the U.S. will get the message, LOUD AND CLEAR, that anti-American subversion will no longer be tolerated.

    To 97% of U.S. Muslims, this is a very welcome message. Meanwhile, the extremist 3% will at the very least lie low for a while. Organized da'wa (proselytizing) in prisons, among second-generation Muslim youth etc. will go on the back burner for some time and be less of a problem now that the adults are back in charge in DC.

    The majority of earlier and better integrated immigrants from the Muslim world have always cherished their good fortune in having escaped their Islam-addled countries of origin, and have no interest in encouraging further Islamization in the U.S. These immigrants mostly came to America before 2001 to live their own lives and enjoy the opportunities offered by their new home. They certainly never viewed themselves as jihadis sacrificing their lives to turn America into another Muslim land.

    Of course, many U.S. Muslims remain scared of murder and intimidation by an extremist but well-organized and well-funded minority. Just as serious to moderate Muslims is the risk of re-Islamization of second and third generation Muslims (mainly young men) by Saudi and Qatari-funded preachers and mosques.

    It is quite true that while there are moderate Muslims, there is NO doctrine of "moderate Islam." There is a whole industry - quite well funded - of bare-faced liars misrepresenting Islam as a peaceful doctrine that is compatible with the U.S. Constitution and Western values.

    In sum, many U.S. Muslims have quietly decided to live as BAD MUSLIMS, ignoring the more extreme doctrines of their faith. However, they are understandably reluctant to risk assassination as "hypocrites" or outright apostates as mandated by mainstream Islam.

    Hey EE,

    that anti-American subversion will no longer be tolerated

    Nor should it be.

    have always cherished their good fortune

    They have actually – they feel quite blessed.

    and have no interest in encouraging further Islamization in the U.S.

    No, these are the same generation that has built the currently existing crop of mosques around the US and are handing off the baton within the next decade to the next generation.

    These immigrants mostly came to America before 2001 to live their own lives and enjoy the opportunities offered by their new home.

    Yup.

    many U.S. Muslims remain scared of murder and intimidation by an extremist but well-organized and well-funded minority

    Not really – if you have your ear to the ground in the Muslim community, the traditionalists have been gaining ground for the last decade or so. Salafi/Wahhabi style doctrine took a fairly big hit since the 90′s – it’s the random outliers that worry us most. The young guys who are not really connected to a mosque (sex, drugs rock and roll) and then have an about face and pick the wrong crew to take their Islam from. This is not new, West Point already knows this:
    Both findings indicate that the majority of the foreign fighters had limited familiarity with the tenets of the Islamic faith. This is consistent with the findings from the CTC’s earlier report, which showed that very small numbers of foreign fighters reported having any religious education and that approximately 70% of fighters reported having a basic knowledge of Shari`a law. Given these findings, it seems that the ability of the foreign fighters to develop an emotional and cognitive attachment to the jihadi community is based on other factors, which may be more related to cultural and political dimensions of their identities as Muslims in non-Muslim societies than religious triggers. The ability of jihadi groups to recruit foreign fighters is thus based on creating a narrative that is focused on the ongoing deprivation of Muslims, both in specific Western polities, as well as in the international arena. While convincing them that joining the jihadi movement based on specific religious imperatives may be important, it seems to play a secondary role. Moreover, our findings also correspond with primary sources indicating that jihadi groups in general prefer to recruit individuals who have limited religious education since they are less capable of critically scrutinizing the jihadi narrative and ideology, in addition to being less familiar with contrasting Islamic schools of thought.”

    https://www.ctc.usma.edu/v2/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Cradle-to-Grave2.pdf

    British intelligence has concluded the same:
    Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1

    by Saudi and Qatari-funded preachers and mosques

    I have lived around and attended dozens of mosques in the US and only knew of one that was foreign funded and they weren’t shy about it:

    http://kingfahadmosque.org/

    Where are these funds? It would make our constant fundraising dinners a thing of the past.

    there is NO doctrine of “moderate Islam.”

    I don’t even know what that means – do ‘moderate Muslims’ drink alcohol or eat pork or march in gay pride parades? Do they let their daughters dress like whores and get ogled by men at nightclubs? There is a traditional Sunni Orthodoxy going 14 centuries strong that represents 85-90% or the Muslims but I don’t know what that means in terms of ‘moderate’.

    There is a whole industry – quite well funded – of bare-faced liars misrepresenting Islam as a peaceful doctrine

    There is a whole industry – quite well funded – of bare-faced liars misrepresenting Islam as a warlike doctrine. And they are connected at the hip with Israeli-firsters – I guarantee.

    In sum, many U.S. Muslims have quietly decided to live as BAD MUSLIMS, ignoring the more extreme doctrines of their faith. However, they are understandably reluctant to risk assassination as “hypocrites” or outright apostates as mandated by mainstream Islam.

    No, to the contrary we are living according to our faith. My wife is a White convert and studying to become a certified scholar in the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. She is studying plenty of medieval texts like this one:

    http://kitaabun.com/shopping3/product_info.php?products_id=2828

    We’re not ignoring any ‘extreme’ doctrines – the extremists are ignoring normative rulings of our tradition. We’re supposed to live in non-Muslim lands according to the law of the land. These are old-school rulings for centuries:
    “The status of the Muslims who reside and are born in non-Muslim states is the reverse of the above non-Muslim status in a Muslim state: al-Muslim bi-dhimmati l-kâfir [a Muslim in the care of a non-Muslim state] and from our own Muslim and religious perspective, whether we like it or not, there are similarities to the status of a guest which should not be forgotten.”

    http://www.livingislam.org/maa/dcmm_e.html

    If this is the first time you’re being exposed to it – not our fault – stop assuming the extremists have the correct interpretation.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    jihadi groups in general prefer to recruit individuals who have limited religious education
     
    Based on what I read about Mohamed Atta, I'd imagine the most susceptible demographic is a secular well-educated professional. With a strong emotional reaction to injustice.

    Intuitively, it seem understandable why a religious type is not predisposed to radical actions: after all, everything is god's will; inshallah...
  58. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Since globalist US is the main terror-izer of the world(especially against Muslims), every Middle East and North African nation should ban all US military, imperialism, and influence. That’s the better deal. Muslims should work harder at keeping Americans out than squealing to be allowed into the US where they’ll only come under Zionist, homo, and feminist domination.

    Read More
  59. @Talha
    Hey EE,

    that anti-American subversion will no longer be tolerated
     
    Nor should it be.

    have always cherished their good fortune
     
    They have actually - they feel quite blessed.

    and have no interest in encouraging further Islamization in the U.S.
     
    No, these are the same generation that has built the currently existing crop of mosques around the US and are handing off the baton within the next decade to the next generation.

    These immigrants mostly came to America before 2001 to live their own lives and enjoy the opportunities offered by their new home.
     
    Yup.

    many U.S. Muslims remain scared of murder and intimidation by an extremist but well-organized and well-funded minority
     
    Not really - if you have your ear to the ground in the Muslim community, the traditionalists have been gaining ground for the last decade or so. Salafi/Wahhabi style doctrine took a fairly big hit since the 90's - it's the random outliers that worry us most. The young guys who are not really connected to a mosque (sex, drugs rock and roll) and then have an about face and pick the wrong crew to take their Islam from. This is not new, West Point already knows this:
    "Both findings indicate that the majority of the foreign fighters had limited familiarity with the tenets of the Islamic faith. This is consistent with the findings from the CTC’s earlier report, which showed that very small numbers of foreign fighters reported having any religious education and that approximately 70% of fighters reported having a basic knowledge of Shari`a law. Given these findings, it seems that the ability of the foreign fighters to develop an emotional and cognitive attachment to the jihadi community is based on other factors, which may be more related to cultural and political dimensions of their identities as Muslims in non-Muslim societies than religious triggers. The ability of jihadi groups to recruit foreign fighters is thus based on creating a narrative that is focused on the ongoing deprivation of Muslims, both in specific Western polities, as well as in the international arena. While convincing them that joining the jihadi movement based on specific religious imperatives may be important, it seems to play a secondary role. Moreover, our findings also correspond with primary sources indicating that jihadi groups in general prefer to recruit individuals who have limited religious education since they are less capable of critically scrutinizing the jihadi narrative and ideology, in addition to being less familiar with contrasting Islamic schools of thought."
    https://www.ctc.usma.edu/v2/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Cradle-to-Grave2.pdf

    British intelligence has concluded the same:
    Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1


    by Saudi and Qatari-funded preachers and mosques
     
    I have lived around and attended dozens of mosques in the US and only knew of one that was foreign funded and they weren't shy about it:
    http://kingfahadmosque.org/

    Where are these funds? It would make our constant fundraising dinners a thing of the past.


    there is NO doctrine of “moderate Islam.”
     
    I don't even know what that means - do 'moderate Muslims' drink alcohol or eat pork or march in gay pride parades? Do they let their daughters dress like whores and get ogled by men at nightclubs? There is a traditional Sunni Orthodoxy going 14 centuries strong that represents 85-90% or the Muslims but I don't know what that means in terms of 'moderate'.

    There is a whole industry – quite well funded – of bare-faced liars misrepresenting Islam as a peaceful doctrine
     
    There is a whole industry – quite well funded – of bare-faced liars misrepresenting Islam as a warlike doctrine. And they are connected at the hip with Israeli-firsters - I guarantee.

    In sum, many U.S. Muslims have quietly decided to live as BAD MUSLIMS, ignoring the more extreme doctrines of their faith. However, they are understandably reluctant to risk assassination as “hypocrites” or outright apostates as mandated by mainstream Islam.
     
    No, to the contrary we are living according to our faith. My wife is a White convert and studying to become a certified scholar in the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. She is studying plenty of medieval texts like this one:
    http://kitaabun.com/shopping3/product_info.php?products_id=2828

    We're not ignoring any 'extreme' doctrines - the extremists are ignoring normative rulings of our tradition. We're supposed to live in non-Muslim lands according to the law of the land. These are old-school rulings for centuries:
    “The status of the Muslims who reside and are born in non-Muslim states is the reverse of the above non-Muslim status in a Muslim state: al-Muslim bi-dhimmati l-kâfir [a Muslim in the care of a non-Muslim state] and from our own Muslim and religious perspective, whether we like it or not, there are similarities to the status of a guest which should not be forgotten.”
    http://www.livingislam.org/maa/dcmm_e.html

    If this is the first time you're being exposed to it - not our fault - stop assuming the extremists have the correct interpretation.

    Peace.

    jihadi groups in general prefer to recruit individuals who have limited religious education

    Based on what I read about Mohamed Atta, I’d imagine the most susceptible demographic is a secular well-educated professional. With a strong emotional reaction to injustice.

    Intuitively, it seem understandable why a religious type is not predisposed to radical actions: after all, everything is god’s will; inshallah…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Mao,

    Don't know if you've come across this interview before, but it is from the former chief mufti of Al-Qaeda (head of their Shariah committee) who split with it precisely once it became clear they were going to implement the targeting of civilians:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzUafFkd-EM

    In an earlier interview he laid out the other violation fairly clearly:
    "For another thing, such operations violate the pact we made. Anybody who enters the U.S. uses an entrance visa, which we consider, from a religious perspective, to be a binding treaty of protection. Anybody who is protected by the enemy should not harm the enemy. He is prohibited from breaching this treaty of protection."
    https://www.memri.org/reports/former-al-qaeda-shura-council-member-abu-hafs-al-mauritani-i-opposed-911-its-planning-stages

    This is nothing new for anyone who is solidly familiar with our tradition - these rules have not changed since the inception and are found in multiple works across the various juristic schools dating back to the 8th century.

    Peace.

    Note: The man's command of classical Arabic is impeccable by the way - music to the ears.
  60. Talha says:
    @Talha
    Hey KC,

    Few things...

    The raid was against al-Qaeda in Yemen
     
    I give as much credence to official statements from the Trump administration as I did with Obama's in this regard. But, let's assume it was al-Qaeda. We are already beefing up our border and immigration security and you stated that this whack-a-mole policy is not going to work, so...what the **** are we bombing Yemen for?

    this is the only tool that President Trump has now
     
    I disagree. He can and should de-escalate - big time. You mentioned that the reason certain groups are growing in Yemen is because of the civil war and instability which is fueled by Saudi war-making. They get their munitions from us and the Brits (which work with the hardware we sold them) - we can cut off the supply tomorrow if we wanted.

    Ultimately he will have to shut down the Salafist/Wahhabist religious university in Medina
     
    Again, he should stay out of any internal theological issues within the Muslim world. Many of the top Salafi/Wahhabi scholars have come out strong against extremist groups like Daesh. It's usually the young hot-heads that know just enough to be volatile that cause the most problems.
    Going in for one side will cause the Salafi/Wahhabi banner to be presented as the rallying cry against Western imperialism. It is completely counterproductive - more meddling is not what we need.

    and shutdown all Salafist mosques in the US
     
    If the people of the US want to make restrictions on the Bill of Rights, it is their prerogative. Russia also monitors and intervenes in persons or mosques that are deemed to be potentially subversive.

    I trust you understand French and offer this video that explains the threat
     
    I don't, but as a Muslim, I am quite aware of the threat of Salafi/Wahhabi extremists who have been butchering us like there's no tomorrow:
    www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMIReport1May31October2015.pdf

    And I'm also aware of the nuances between groups like Daesh and run-of-the-mill non-violent Muslims that espouse Salafi or Wahhabi teachings.

    Ultimately, sanctions against Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and the other gulf states will be required to force them to renounce the Salafist ideology.
     
    Again, counterproductive. You are looking at it through some kind of Cold War lens - did this work with Cuba or did they double down? If one really wants to hurt them then; 1) stop their ability to invest in or benefit economically from the West and 2) stop supplying them with weapon systems which they can pass on to extremist proxies.

    In the end “Winter is Coming”
     
    Though I'm a big fan of the book series - I do not look forward to any news of catastrophic collapse, but maybe a return to more moderate means of living is best for us all in the long run, especially if all the 'progress' is built on an unstable and unsustainable foundation in the first place...
    "It is right of God that He lowers whatever raises itself in the world." - reported in Bukhari

    Peace.

    Sorry, should be:
    “It is the right of God that He lowers whatever raises itself in the world.”

    His world, His decision; we only live in it.

    Read More
  61. bossel says:

    Though 9/11 is cited as an explanation for Trump’s executive order, none of the countries whose citizens were involved (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Lebanon) are facing any restrictions.

    That’s the really interesting part of this. & in spite of this, a whole bunch of Trumpist idiots still believe that this new president is a man of his word.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    "in spite of this, a whole bunch of Trumpist idiots still believe that this new president is a man of his word"

    He's been in office a whole week. You can't attack on all fronts all the time, and he's heavily engaged at the moment. Saudi Arabia seems to have its suckers pretty deep in the US and UK bodies politic, so let's win the battles he's currently engaged in, then the next, then the ones after that, and that, and that, before we start calling him a false prophet because we haven't got everything we wanted RIGHT NOW!

    Inability to defer gratification is the mark of an infant (or troll).

  62. Talha says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    jihadi groups in general prefer to recruit individuals who have limited religious education
     
    Based on what I read about Mohamed Atta, I'd imagine the most susceptible demographic is a secular well-educated professional. With a strong emotional reaction to injustice.

    Intuitively, it seem understandable why a religious type is not predisposed to radical actions: after all, everything is god's will; inshallah...

    Hey Mao,

    Don’t know if you’ve come across this interview before, but it is from the former chief mufti of Al-Qaeda (head of their Shariah committee) who split with it precisely once it became clear they were going to implement the targeting of civilians:

    In an earlier interview he laid out the other violation fairly clearly:
    “For another thing, such operations violate the pact we made. Anybody who enters the U.S. uses an entrance visa, which we consider, from a religious perspective, to be a binding treaty of protection. Anybody who is protected by the enemy should not harm the enemy. He is prohibited from breaching this treaty of protection.”

    https://www.memri.org/reports/former-al-qaeda-shura-council-member-abu-hafs-al-mauritani-i-opposed-911-its-planning-stages

    This is nothing new for anyone who is solidly familiar with our tradition – these rules have not changed since the inception and are found in multiple works across the various juristic schools dating back to the 8th century.

    Peace.

    Note: The man’s command of classical Arabic is impeccable by the way – music to the ears.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    This is nothing new for anyone who is solidly familiar with our tradition – these rules have not changed since the inception and are found in multiple works across the various juristic schools dating back to the 8th century.
     
    Yeah, that's the thing: the believers and traditionalists behave according to rules, the code, the law. These rules are passed down from gods, or from their ancestors, and thus considered infallible. The caveat is, of course, that priests (or elders) are free to interpret and re-interpret these rules.

    However, a modern rational person (like ourselves) tends to act either on impulse or (more likely) as a rational, logical problem-solver. This is how various attacks (on both sides) are likely to be conceived, planned, and executed. Not by those who follow religious doctrines, but by those who set rational goals and work, ignoring various rules and taboos, to achieve them...
  63. So if we don’t let them have their way with us the terrorists will hate us and try to kill us? They already do that. Sounds like double secret probation, Dean Wurmer.

    Read More
  64. @Talha
    Hey Peter,

    Some excellent points. I feel that many Europeans have forgotten their history including where the French or British would ally with the Ottomans for instance in order to undermine each other. I mean the last hopes of the French invasion of Egypt and the Levant were literally sunk by the Brits at the Nile Delta.

    Habsburgs in their infinite foolishness decided to incorporate Bosnia and all its Muslims into the Empire
     
    Actually, they knew what they were doing - Bosnians and Albanians often were the best soldiers and officers in the Ottoman armies, they were basically like leaderless samurais:
    "Feared by their enemies, respected by their comrades for their fighting spirit, the Bosnian-Herzegovinian troops were a reliable component of the Austro-Hungarian Army until the end of the First World War."
    https://www.militaria.at/Book.aspx?book=9009000&Language=en

    Hapsburgs also had a knack for adapting a millet-like system for their Bosnians to make things run smoothly:
    "As for legal jurisdiction, allowance was made for the specific situation. As citizens of the Habsburg Monarchy, Bosnian Muslims were subject to Austro-Hungarian civil law, but questions of family and inheritance law were left to the sharia. The Muslim legal scholars were not only appointed and paid by the Austro-Hungarian administration but also constrained to cooperate with the civil jurisdiction, also in terms of court procedure."
    http://ww1.habsburger.net/en/chapters/sharia-under-double-eagle-austria-hungary-and-bosnian-muslims

    Take away the oil money and radical Islam would diminish rather quickly.
     
    Not that simple - but that would certainly help immensely!

    Peace.

    “Some excellent points. I feel that many Europeans have forgotten their history including where the French or British would ally with the Ottomans for instance in order to undermine each other…”

    No, Peter’s points weren’t excellent at all, and the British and French alliances with the Ottomans were purely alliances of convenience. Some art lecturer called Jerry Brotton tried to make out ten years back that Queen Elizabeth I telling her Ambassador to make nicey-nicey to the Grande Porte (hoping that Suleyman would keep Spanish galleys occupied in the Med as the Armada loomed) proved that we’d always been allied with EastAsia and that Turkey should enter the EU with all speed. Misuse of history, swallowed whole by globalists for political reasons.

    Here’s part of the Special Liturgy of 1565, by Elizabeth’s command a compulsory part of all English church services for the duration of the Siege of Malta (defended by the Catholic powers from whom England was estranged).

    “O Almighty and everlasting God, our heavenly Father; we thy disobedient and rebellious children, now by thy just judgment sore afflicted, and in great danger to be oppressed, by thine and our sworn and most deadly enemies the Turks, Infidels, and Miscreants, do make humble suit to the throne of thy grace, for thy mercy, and aid against the same our mortal enemies: for though we do profess the name of thy only Son Christ our Saviour, yet through our manifold sins and wickedness we have most justly deserved so much of thy wrath and indignation, that we can not but say, O Lord correct us in thy mercy and not in thy fury. Better it is for us to fall into thy hands, than into the hands of men, and especially into the hands of Turks and Infidels thy professed enemies, who now invade thine inheritance. Against thee, O Lord, have we sinned, and transgressed thy commandments: against Turks, Infidels, and other enemies of the Gospel of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, have we not offended, but only in this, that we acknowledge thee, the eternal Father, and thy only Son our Redeemer, with the Holy Ghost, the comforter, to be the only true Almighty and everliving God. For if we would deny and blaspheme thy most holy name, forsake the Gospel of thy dear Son, embrace false religion, commit horrible Idolatries, and give ourselves to all impure, wicked, and abominable life, as they do; the devil, the world, the Turk, and all other thine enemies would be at peace with us, according to the saying of thy Son Christ: If you were of the world, the world would love his own. But therefore hate they us, because we love thee: therefore persecute they us, because we acknowledge thee, God the Father, and Jesus Christ thy Son, whom thou hast sent. The Turk goeth about to set up, to extol, and to magnify that wicked monster and dammed soul Mohumet above thy dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ, whom we in heart believe, and with mouth confess, to be our only Saviour and redeemer.”

    A year later the compulsory prayers were similar, but for the defence of Hungary.

    Almost exactly three hundred years on, the British press was reporting from Orthodox Bulgaria on the massacres of Christians by the Ottoman Empire.

    “Nothing has as yet been said of the Turks that I do not now believe; nothing could be said of them that I should not think probable and likely. There is, it seems, a point in atrocity beyond which discrimination is impossible …”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey AN,

    the British and French alliances with the Ottomans were purely alliances of convenience
     
    What else do my words "in order to undermine each other" mean? Or perhaps they were revenge for Hastings, or Agincourt, or...

    Here’s part of the Special Liturgy of 1565...of the Siege of Malta
     
    Did you expect them to pray for the victory of the Muslims?

    Is your point that Muslims and Christians have had historically antagonistic relationships - is that news to anyone? I mean, Muslims did call it Dar ul-Harb (Abode of War) for a reason.

    Peter's point (and he gave examples), which I agreed with is that certain Christians of the past were able to have nuanced and intelligent relationships with Muslims that were to the benefit of both; even during the Crusades:
    "In the same way the Muslims continuously journeyed from Damascus to Acre (through Frankish territory), and likewise not one of the Christian merchants was stopped or hindered (in Muslim territories). The Christians impose a tax on the Muslims in their land which gives them full security; and likewise the Christian merchants pay a tax upon their goods in Muslim lands. Agreement exists between them, and there is equal treatment in all cases."
    http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/prh3/259/texts/jubayr.htm

    It's up to us now as to which part of history we want to draw lessons - my hope is that cooler heads will prevail.

    Peace.
  65. @bossel

    Though 9/11 is cited as an explanation for Trump’s executive order, none of the countries whose citizens were involved (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Lebanon) are facing any restrictions.
     
    That's the really interesting part of this. & in spite of this, a whole bunch of Trumpist idiots still believe that this new president is a man of his word.

    “in spite of this, a whole bunch of Trumpist idiots still believe that this new president is a man of his word”

    He’s been in office a whole week. You can’t attack on all fronts all the time, and he’s heavily engaged at the moment. Saudi Arabia seems to have its suckers pretty deep in the US and UK bodies politic, so let’s win the battles he’s currently engaged in, then the next, then the ones after that, and that, and that, before we start calling him a false prophet because we haven’t got everything we wanted RIGHT NOW!

    Inability to defer gratification is the mark of an infant (or troll).

    Read More
  66. vinteuil says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    If we are tightening up the borders and even scrutinizing Muslims inside the US – both of which have some legitimacy in trying to tackle domestic terrorism
     
    Wow, you are really surpassing yourself in the Uncle Talha department.

    One thing I am unclear on, though. You know much more about Islam than I do. I know that Islam (like Judaism) forbids the eating of pork. I know that.

    Does Islam forbid you from being such a complete and utter fuckhead? Now, granted, Judaism does not either have (as far as I ever was taught) an explicit commandment of: "Though shalt not be a fuckhead" but it is kind of culturally understood, I feel....


    what the **** are we still bombing Yemen for???!!!
     
    Oh, you actually believe that we were bombing Yemen in order to "fight terrorism"....

    You know, even if Islam (as I suspect) does not have the explicit commandment: "Thou shalt not be a fuckhead", I would put it to you that you would do well to try to adhere more to that regardless. After all, Islam surely does not say: "Thou shalt be a fuckhead", does it?

    Shorter Revusky:

    “…fuckhead…fuckhead…fuckhead…fuckhead…”

    …and this addressed to Talha of all people!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    “…fuckhead…fuckhead…fuckhead…fuckhead…”

    …and this addressed to Talha of all people!
     

    You, Stefan Burton, are an extremely ignorant, stupid person. However, Talha is something else entirely.

    Talha, with his "I'm a sweet, good Muzzie" schtick, is a profoundly stupid person.

  67. I’m sick of this twisted logic.

    I’d be willing to bet that 26,171 bombs would be a better recruiting and motivational tool…..but that’s just me.

    Read More
  68. @vinteuil
    Shorter Revusky:

    "...fuckhead...fuckhead...fuckhead...fuckhead..."

    ...and this addressed to Talha of all people!

    “…fuckhead…fuckhead…fuckhead…fuckhead…”

    …and this addressed to Talha of all people!

    You, Stefan Burton, are an extremely ignorant, stupid person. However, Talha is something else entirely.

    Talha, with his “I’m a sweet, good Muzzie” schtick, is a profoundly stupid person.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I defend the right of stupid people to comment.

    However, they should limit their word count.
  69. Svigor says:

    In the end “Winter is Coming” whether Trump succeeds or not:

    https://forecastingintelligence.org/2016/07/14/winter-is-coming/

    I’m only partway through that, but the author’s wrong. About the timeline. Sure, resource depletion is a thing. But it’s going to happen along a much longer timeline than he or his 1970s models predict.

    Just look at all the new oil that is being recovered with new extraction technologies. America can supply all of her own oil, if she wanted to. We’re not that far off. The current production glut is keeping prices down, so it’s not (as) profitable to extract at the moment.

    Think about all the *(@!ing oil in Siberia, waiting to be discovered. We can’t extract it yet, because there’s so much cheap oil coming out of the ME, but eventually, it will become profitable to do so.

    Sure, China’s going to start guzzling oil like it’s going out of style in the 21st century. But Siberia. Peak oil seems to have been pushed waaay back by the shale oil guys. Wait until they get hold of Siberia.

    The timeline for this stuff will be pretty long and gradual, and there will be a lot of innovation in energy production between now and then. I think space colonization will full steam ahead before we get to the terrestrial energy bottleneck.

    Solar power is likely to be a big deal in this century. The sun provides us with an enormous amount of energy on a constant basis.

    I’m confident in predicting that impending existential crises will be human-related, not energy-related. I hope it isn’t bad enough to derail the quest for space, AI, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    If push comes to shove coal will be converted to synthetic oil like the Germans did in WWII.

    The best lubricating motor oil is made from natural gas which will likely be produced from decomposing organic waste.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Disagree - fracking has only been sustained through huge subsidies, and eventually the debt will come home to roost. I don't think that we will run out of energy, but it'll be a steady decline as a shadow tax on logistics gradually increases due to cost on fuel.
  70. MarkinLA says:
    @Svigor

    In the end “Winter is Coming” whether Trump succeeds or not:

    https://forecastingintelligence.org/2016/07/14/winter-is-coming/
     
    I'm only partway through that, but the author's wrong. About the timeline. Sure, resource depletion is a thing. But it's going to happen along a much longer timeline than he or his 1970s models predict.

    Just look at all the new oil that is being recovered with new extraction technologies. America can supply all of her own oil, if she wanted to. We're not that far off. The current production glut is keeping prices down, so it's not (as) profitable to extract at the moment.

    Think about all the *(@!ing oil in Siberia, waiting to be discovered. We can't extract it yet, because there's so much cheap oil coming out of the ME, but eventually, it will become profitable to do so.

    Sure, China's going to start guzzling oil like it's going out of style in the 21st century. But Siberia. Peak oil seems to have been pushed waaay back by the shale oil guys. Wait until they get hold of Siberia.

    The timeline for this stuff will be pretty long and gradual, and there will be a lot of innovation in energy production between now and then. I think space colonization will full steam ahead before we get to the terrestrial energy bottleneck.

    Solar power is likely to be a big deal in this century. The sun provides us with an enormous amount of energy on a constant basis.

    I'm confident in predicting that impending existential crises will be human-related, not energy-related. I hope it isn't bad enough to derail the quest for space, AI, etc.

    If push comes to shove coal will be converted to synthetic oil like the Germans did in WWII.

    The best lubricating motor oil is made from natural gas which will likely be produced from decomposing organic waste.

    Read More
  71. Talha says:
    @Anonymous Nephew
    "Some excellent points. I feel that many Europeans have forgotten their history including where the French or British would ally with the Ottomans for instance in order to undermine each other..."

    No, Peter's points weren't excellent at all, and the British and French alliances with the Ottomans were purely alliances of convenience. Some art lecturer called Jerry Brotton tried to make out ten years back that Queen Elizabeth I telling her Ambassador to make nicey-nicey to the Grande Porte (hoping that Suleyman would keep Spanish galleys occupied in the Med as the Armada loomed) proved that we'd always been allied with EastAsia and that Turkey should enter the EU with all speed. Misuse of history, swallowed whole by globalists for political reasons.

    Here's part of the Special Liturgy of 1565, by Elizabeth's command a compulsory part of all English church services for the duration of the Siege of Malta (defended by the Catholic powers from whom England was estranged).


    "O Almighty and everlasting God, our heavenly Father; we thy disobedient and rebellious children, now by thy just judgment sore afflicted, and in great danger to be oppressed, by thine and our sworn and most deadly enemies the Turks, Infidels, and Miscreants, do make humble suit to the throne of thy grace, for thy mercy, and aid against the same our mortal enemies: for though we do profess the name of thy only Son Christ our Saviour, yet through our manifold sins and wickedness we have most justly deserved so much of thy wrath and indignation, that we can not but say, O Lord correct us in thy mercy and not in thy fury. Better it is for us to fall into thy hands, than into the hands of men, and especially into the hands of Turks and Infidels thy professed enemies, who now invade thine inheritance. Against thee, O Lord, have we sinned, and transgressed thy commandments: against Turks, Infidels, and other enemies of the Gospel of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, have we not offended, but only in this, that we acknowledge thee, the eternal Father, and thy only Son our Redeemer, with the Holy Ghost, the comforter, to be the only true Almighty and everliving God. For if we would deny and blaspheme thy most holy name, forsake the Gospel of thy dear Son, embrace false religion, commit horrible Idolatries, and give ourselves to all impure, wicked, and abominable life, as they do; the devil, the world, the Turk, and all other thine enemies would be at peace with us, according to the saying of thy Son Christ: If you were of the world, the world would love his own. But therefore hate they us, because we love thee: therefore persecute they us, because we acknowledge thee, God the Father, and Jesus Christ thy Son, whom thou hast sent. The Turk goeth about to set up, to extol, and to magnify that wicked monster and dammed soul Mohumet above thy dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ, whom we in heart believe, and with mouth confess, to be our only Saviour and redeemer."
     
    A year later the compulsory prayers were similar, but for the defence of Hungary.

    Almost exactly three hundred years on, the British press was reporting from Orthodox Bulgaria on the massacres of Christians by the Ottoman Empire.

    "Nothing has as yet been said of the Turks that I do not now believe; nothing could be said of them that I should not think probable and likely. There is, it seems, a point in atrocity beyond which discrimination is impossible ..."

    Hey AN,

    the British and French alliances with the Ottomans were purely alliances of convenience

    What else do my words “in order to undermine each other” mean? Or perhaps they were revenge for Hastings, or Agincourt, or…

    Here’s part of the Special Liturgy of 1565…of the Siege of Malta

    Did you expect them to pray for the victory of the Muslims?

    Is your point that Muslims and Christians have had historically antagonistic relationships – is that news to anyone? I mean, Muslims did call it Dar ul-Harb (Abode of War) for a reason.

    Peter’s point (and he gave examples), which I agreed with is that certain Christians of the past were able to have nuanced and intelligent relationships with Muslims that were to the benefit of both; even during the Crusades:
    “In the same way the Muslims continuously journeyed from Damascus to Acre (through Frankish territory), and likewise not one of the Christian merchants was stopped or hindered (in Muslim territories). The Christians impose a tax on the Muslims in their land which gives them full security; and likewise the Christian merchants pay a tax upon their goods in Muslim lands. Agreement exists between them, and there is equal treatment in all cases.”

    http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/prh3/259/texts/jubayr.htm

    It’s up to us now as to which part of history we want to draw lessons – my hope is that cooler heads will prevail.

    Peace.

    Read More
  72. Anna says:
    @James Rathburn
    There are only two ways this whole wars/terrorism issue will end.

    Option 1 :
    American's find a way to get rid of Jewish control over our media and political discourse. If you haven't figured it out yet, these wars have nothing to do with "terrorism", "democracy", "profit" , "oil" or any of the other explanations. They have to to do with Israel's tribal supporters in the US manipulating the US into destroying/destabilizing Muslim countries to benefit Israel. End of story.

    Option 2:
    Muslims countries themselves get their own house in order. And the only way they will ever do that is to realize that the cancer at the heart of the muslim world is the Saudi Royal Family. The Saudi Royal family are active collaborators with Israel and their tribal supporters in the US/Europe. A quarter of the world's population are muslims. No matter how much scheming Jews do through their surrogates in the US, they cannot bully around that many people - if those people have leaders who are interested in their welfare. And right now Saudi Arabia does ALL of the dirty work in the middle-east and elsewhere.

    This is a comment forum and I don't have the space nor desire to expand on this any more.
    But let me wrap it up by linking my points to this article/issue.

    Notice this "ban" does not include Saudi Arabia. The 15 of the 19 hijackers in 9/11 were Saudi's. Saudi Arabia is the prime financier of terrorist groups. They are also the ones who have spent billions spreading Wahhabism among the muslim world. So why exactly isn't saudi arabia not on this list? After readying option1 and option2 it should be obvious.

    Let’s consider the Saudi situation more objectively. Saudi Arabia has suffered more terrorist attacks on its own soil in 2015 than it did in the 11 previous years combined–many of these claimed by ISIS. The leader of ISIS in 2014 through 2016 called for (declared a “fatwa” against) the Saudi Royal family. Osama bin Laden despised that family, who had kicked him out of the country, revoked his citizenship and closed his accounts in the early-mid 90s. (OBL had grown infuriated when the Saudis allowed American troops on “sacred soil” for the invasion of Iraq in 1991). As for the Wahhabi nonsense, blaming a religion or an interpretation thereof is way too vague to stand as a behavioral psychology argument. Further to this point, it is important to keep in mind that most of these jihadi recruits know squat about Islam (it later turns out when those arrested are interrogated) or they “find God” hours before they are sent to flying school.

    Also, the 15 of the 19 story is only half told. OBL wanted to humiliate the Saudi royal family and therefore personally recruited Saudis representing the provinces of that country, or a concentration of those provinces. There were hundreds if not thousands of volunteers for this mission. That does not change the fact that these were still Saudi, but it is a different context than to imply that the royal family set them up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Also, the 15 of the 19 story is only half told. OBL wanted to humiliate the Saudi royal family and therefore personally recruited Saudis representing the provinces of that country, or a concentration of those provinces. There were hundreds if not thousands of volunteers for this mission
     
    Wow, piling the bullshit so much higher and deeper!

    So hundreds or even thousands) of people volunteered for the mission, eh? Uhh, hold on. How did they even know about it?

    So did they fill out a job application form and provide reference letters. "I recommend Anwar for the job as a suicide hijacker. He's got experience!"
  73. JBR999 says:

    If the so-called ‘Muslim Ban’ angers the terrorists, and they attack us, then we should impose a REAL AND COMPLETE MUSLIM BAN, and deport all Muslims currently in this country. That will definitely prevent any further attacks.

    Read More
  74. attonn says:

    Makes perfect sense…Let’s admit more people who will blow us up if we don’t. And why not invite all 2 billion of them, maybe then they’ll be really nice (before chopping our heads off).

    Read More
  75. Seraphim says:
    @Eagle Eye
    Muslims already established in the U.S. will get the message, LOUD AND CLEAR, that anti-American subversion will no longer be tolerated.

    To 97% of U.S. Muslims, this is a very welcome message. Meanwhile, the extremist 3% will at the very least lie low for a while. Organized da'wa (proselytizing) in prisons, among second-generation Muslim youth etc. will go on the back burner for some time and be less of a problem now that the adults are back in charge in DC.

    The majority of earlier and better integrated immigrants from the Muslim world have always cherished their good fortune in having escaped their Islam-addled countries of origin, and have no interest in encouraging further Islamization in the U.S. These immigrants mostly came to America before 2001 to live their own lives and enjoy the opportunities offered by their new home. They certainly never viewed themselves as jihadis sacrificing their lives to turn America into another Muslim land.

    Of course, many U.S. Muslims remain scared of murder and intimidation by an extremist but well-organized and well-funded minority. Just as serious to moderate Muslims is the risk of re-Islamization of second and third generation Muslims (mainly young men) by Saudi and Qatari-funded preachers and mosques.

    It is quite true that while there are moderate Muslims, there is NO doctrine of "moderate Islam." There is a whole industry - quite well funded - of bare-faced liars misrepresenting Islam as a peaceful doctrine that is compatible with the U.S. Constitution and Western values.

    In sum, many U.S. Muslims have quietly decided to live as BAD MUSLIMS, ignoring the more extreme doctrines of their faith. However, they are understandably reluctant to risk assassination as "hypocrites" or outright apostates as mandated by mainstream Islam.

    That is the real message and must be welcomed. It does not go far enough. They should be requested to state that they would not ever seek to impose Sharia Law, halal food, burqas, never speak in favor of re-instauration of the Caliphate (de solidarization with organizations like Hizb ut-Tahrir), never speak of ‘Islamophobia’ whenever someone criticizes aspects of Muslim’s belief system,or Muslims’ misdemeanours, never rally to protest against criticism of Mahomed.

    Read More
  76. Discard says:
    @James Rathburn
    There are only two ways this whole wars/terrorism issue will end.

    Option 1 :
    American's find a way to get rid of Jewish control over our media and political discourse. If you haven't figured it out yet, these wars have nothing to do with "terrorism", "democracy", "profit" , "oil" or any of the other explanations. They have to to do with Israel's tribal supporters in the US manipulating the US into destroying/destabilizing Muslim countries to benefit Israel. End of story.

    Option 2:
    Muslims countries themselves get their own house in order. And the only way they will ever do that is to realize that the cancer at the heart of the muslim world is the Saudi Royal Family. The Saudi Royal family are active collaborators with Israel and their tribal supporters in the US/Europe. A quarter of the world's population are muslims. No matter how much scheming Jews do through their surrogates in the US, they cannot bully around that many people - if those people have leaders who are interested in their welfare. And right now Saudi Arabia does ALL of the dirty work in the middle-east and elsewhere.

    This is a comment forum and I don't have the space nor desire to expand on this any more.
    But let me wrap it up by linking my points to this article/issue.

    Notice this "ban" does not include Saudi Arabia. The 15 of the 19 hijackers in 9/11 were Saudi's. Saudi Arabia is the prime financier of terrorist groups. They are also the ones who have spent billions spreading Wahhabism among the muslim world. So why exactly isn't saudi arabia not on this list? After readying option1 and option2 it should be obvious.

    Executive orders are always pursuant to an already existing law. Did you think that the POTUS just makes it up? This oEO, if you care to read it, states at the top which law is being enforced. The law in question was the Terrorist Travel Protection Act of 2015, signed by Mr Obama in December of that year. That law applies only to certain countries, which are listed. Saudi Arabia is not on Mr Obama’s list, so President Trump has no legislative authority to include them.

    Read More
  77. Discard says:

    If no Moslem ever set off a bomb, we still should not let them in. Theirs is a culture of constant petty shortchanging, slipshod work, double dealing. And that goes for all Middle Easterners, Christian and Jew too.

    Read More
  78. @Talha
    Hey Mao,

    Don't know if you've come across this interview before, but it is from the former chief mufti of Al-Qaeda (head of their Shariah committee) who split with it precisely once it became clear they were going to implement the targeting of civilians:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzUafFkd-EM

    In an earlier interview he laid out the other violation fairly clearly:
    "For another thing, such operations violate the pact we made. Anybody who enters the U.S. uses an entrance visa, which we consider, from a religious perspective, to be a binding treaty of protection. Anybody who is protected by the enemy should not harm the enemy. He is prohibited from breaching this treaty of protection."
    https://www.memri.org/reports/former-al-qaeda-shura-council-member-abu-hafs-al-mauritani-i-opposed-911-its-planning-stages

    This is nothing new for anyone who is solidly familiar with our tradition - these rules have not changed since the inception and are found in multiple works across the various juristic schools dating back to the 8th century.

    Peace.

    Note: The man's command of classical Arabic is impeccable by the way - music to the ears.

    This is nothing new for anyone who is solidly familiar with our tradition – these rules have not changed since the inception and are found in multiple works across the various juristic schools dating back to the 8th century.

    Yeah, that’s the thing: the believers and traditionalists behave according to rules, the code, the law. These rules are passed down from gods, or from their ancestors, and thus considered infallible. The caveat is, of course, that priests (or elders) are free to interpret and re-interpret these rules.

    However, a modern rational person (like ourselves) tends to act either on impulse or (more likely) as a rational, logical problem-solver. This is how various attacks (on both sides) are likely to be conceived, planned, and executed. Not by those who follow religious doctrines, but by those who set rational goals and work, ignoring various rules and taboos, to achieve them…

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Mao,

    The caveat is, of course, that priests (or elders) are free to interpret and re-interpret these rules.
     
    Excellent point - yes, there is no escaping this. Like any other ethics/legal framework there is the problem of the fallible human mind. The only question is; who is qualified to interpret?

    One way our tradition gets around this problem (at least for Sunnis) is by the agreement of all qualified authorities on a specific issue:
    "All Muslims are guided by the Sunnah, but Sunnis stress it, as well as consensus (ijma; the full name of Sunnis is Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Ijma, people of the Sunnah and consensus)."
    http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2280

    Meaning, once we have determined that there are no qualified authorities dissenting on an issue, we pretty much consider it baked and immutable; we can say "Islam says..." since there are numerous hadith mentioning that God will not allow the Ummah to unite upon an error/deviation. This is what the extremists have broken with.

    by those who set rational goals and work, ignoring various rules and taboos, to achieve them
     
    Indeed, this can digress into utilitarian logic - ends justify the means - ethics be damned!

    Peace.
  79. @Anna
    Let's consider the Saudi situation more objectively. Saudi Arabia has suffered more terrorist attacks on its own soil in 2015 than it did in the 11 previous years combined--many of these claimed by ISIS. The leader of ISIS in 2014 through 2016 called for (declared a "fatwa" against) the Saudi Royal family. Osama bin Laden despised that family, who had kicked him out of the country, revoked his citizenship and closed his accounts in the early-mid 90s. (OBL had grown infuriated when the Saudis allowed American troops on "sacred soil" for the invasion of Iraq in 1991). As for the Wahhabi nonsense, blaming a religion or an interpretation thereof is way too vague to stand as a behavioral psychology argument. Further to this point, it is important to keep in mind that most of these jihadi recruits know squat about Islam (it later turns out when those arrested are interrogated) or they "find God" hours before they are sent to flying school.

    Also, the 15 of the 19 story is only half told. OBL wanted to humiliate the Saudi royal family and therefore personally recruited Saudis representing the provinces of that country, or a concentration of those provinces. There were hundreds if not thousands of volunteers for this mission. That does not change the fact that these were still Saudi, but it is a different context than to imply that the royal family set them up.

    Also, the 15 of the 19 story is only half told. OBL wanted to humiliate the Saudi royal family and therefore personally recruited Saudis representing the provinces of that country, or a concentration of those provinces. There were hundreds if not thousands of volunteers for this mission

    Wow, piling the bullshit so much higher and deeper!

    So hundreds or even thousands) of people volunteered for the mission, eh? Uhh, hold on. How did they even know about it?

    So did they fill out a job application form and provide reference letters. “I recommend Anwar for the job as a suicide hijacker. He’s got experience!”

    Read More
  80. iffen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “…fuckhead…fuckhead…fuckhead…fuckhead…”

    …and this addressed to Talha of all people!
     

    You, Stefan Burton, are an extremely ignorant, stupid person. However, Talha is something else entirely.

    Talha, with his "I'm a sweet, good Muzzie" schtick, is a profoundly stupid person.

    I defend the right of stupid people to comment.

    However, they should limit their word count.

    Read More
  81. Svigor says:

    If push comes to shove coal will be converted to synthetic oil like the Germans did in WWII.

    The best lubricating motor oil is made from natural gas which will likely be produced from decomposing organic waste.

    Yeah, I didn’t even get into the ginormous amount of natural gas waiting to be properly exploited. And as you point out, there’s a shit ton of coal.

    Global Warming and Peak Oil are two of the biggest frauds in the “never mind the slow ethnic cleansing of Whites, look a squirrel!” sweepstakes.

    Read More
  82. Svigor says:

    As for the Wahhabi nonsense, blaming a religion or an interpretation thereof is way too vague to stand as a behavioral psychology argument. Further to this point, it is important to keep in mind that most of these jihadi recruits know squat about Islam (it later turns out when those arrested are interrogated) or they “find God” hours before they are sent to flying school.

    It isn’t “further to the point.” One need know nothing of a religion, to serve it. Imam, who does know his religion, only gets to where he is because a bunch of people who also know their religion, put him there. From that position, he holds sway over many subordinate people, who need not know their religion, so much as respond favorably to those who do.

    As for the first sentence, it was way too vague to stand as an argument that religion doesn’t matter.

    If no Moslem ever set off a bomb, we still should not let them in. Theirs is a culture of constant petty shortchanging, slipshod work, double dealing. And that goes for all Middle Easterners, Christian and Jew too.

    Sooo true (though you left a lot of their culture out, I assume for the sake of brevity). I wish I had a dollar for every time someone here was describing Muslims or MENAs, and they might as well have been describing Jews. Jews are simply high-IQ MENAs. I assume you’re right about Christian MENAs, too. I for one think the MENA problem is blood, not religion (but Islam is certainly a reinforcer).

    Read More
  83. @Jonathan Revusky

    US has had mass shootings and such, but terrorist acts (aside from Oklahoma City bombing) have been the work of Muslim immigrants or their progeny born in US.
     
    No, you're misinformed. The events in question have all been false flags and hoaxes.

    No, you’re misinformed. The events in question have all been false flags and hoaxes.

    True.

    Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban’ Will Only Lead to More Terrorist Attacks

    A true statist believer would likely think that, but then one should also consider the more likely possibility that there will be more false flags and it will now be easier to blame them on “terrorist attacks.”

    Read More
  84. Trump is no doubt stirring the pot and is as big an ass FDR. The putrid goof is actually proud of doing what FDR did!!! But of course, we should all recall that Wall Street supported the Bolshies, then Stalin…

    Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Tuesday defended his call to ban Muslims from entering the United States to policies implemented by former US President Franklin Roosevelt against people of Japanese, Germans and Italian descent during World War Two.

    “What I’m doing is no different than FDR,” Trump said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” program in one of a round of heated television interviews where he defended his plan…

    http://www.jpost.com/printarticle.aspx?id=436687

    Read More
  85. Irene says:
    @Anon
    Isis and al-Qaeda activists are often supposed to be inspired simply by a demonic variant of Islam – and this is certainly how Trump has described their motivation – but in practice it was the excesses of the counter-terrorism apparatus such as torture and rendition, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib which acted as the recruiting sergeant for the Salafi-jihadi movements.

    Wrong.

    For 14 centuries this barbaric death-dealing cult did not require any provocation save for the fact that its enemies did not believe in the ranting of their psychotic pedophilic false prophet.

    It took Christianity over 450 years - FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS - to first respond to the mahometan madness, mayhem, and murder and what does Cuckburn suggest we do?

    Let them into the west where they do not belong and where they are unassimilable. Were these worshippers of Satan wearing swastikas, he'd prolly not be too jake with their immigration into the west or if they were wearing hammers and sickles, held not be too jake, but Hijbas and burqas?

    No problem even though Hijabs and Burkas are very bit the enemy uniforms as the uniforms of the Nazis and Commies.

    Not agreeing with Cockburn, but please remember that the early Christian proselytizers were killing Europeana pagans left and right before Christianity became respectable (and mighty stupid).

    Read More
  86. Talha says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    This is nothing new for anyone who is solidly familiar with our tradition – these rules have not changed since the inception and are found in multiple works across the various juristic schools dating back to the 8th century.
     
    Yeah, that's the thing: the believers and traditionalists behave according to rules, the code, the law. These rules are passed down from gods, or from their ancestors, and thus considered infallible. The caveat is, of course, that priests (or elders) are free to interpret and re-interpret these rules.

    However, a modern rational person (like ourselves) tends to act either on impulse or (more likely) as a rational, logical problem-solver. This is how various attacks (on both sides) are likely to be conceived, planned, and executed. Not by those who follow religious doctrines, but by those who set rational goals and work, ignoring various rules and taboos, to achieve them...

    Hey Mao,

    The caveat is, of course, that priests (or elders) are free to interpret and re-interpret these rules.

    Excellent point – yes, there is no escaping this. Like any other ethics/legal framework there is the problem of the fallible human mind. The only question is; who is qualified to interpret?

    One way our tradition gets around this problem (at least for Sunnis) is by the agreement of all qualified authorities on a specific issue:
    “All Muslims are guided by the Sunnah, but Sunnis stress it, as well as consensus (ijma; the full name of Sunnis is Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Ijma, people of the Sunnah and consensus).”

    http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2280

    Meaning, once we have determined that there are no qualified authorities dissenting on an issue, we pretty much consider it baked and immutable; we can say “Islam says…” since there are numerous hadith mentioning that God will not allow the Ummah to unite upon an error/deviation. This is what the extremists have broken with.

    by those who set rational goals and work, ignoring various rules and taboos, to achieve them

    Indeed, this can digress into utilitarian logic – ends justify the means – ethics be damned!

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Excellent point – yes, there is no escaping this. Like any other ethics/legal framework there is the problem of the fallible human mind. The only question is; who is qualified to interpret?

    Wiki:

    Sola scriptura is a formal principle of many Protestant Christian denominations, and one of the five solas. It was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers, who taught that authentication of Scripture is governed by the discernible excellence of the text as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man. Some Evangelical and Baptist denominations state the doctrine of sola scriptura more strongly: Scripture is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
  87. iffen says:
    @Talha
    Hey Mao,

    The caveat is, of course, that priests (or elders) are free to interpret and re-interpret these rules.
     
    Excellent point - yes, there is no escaping this. Like any other ethics/legal framework there is the problem of the fallible human mind. The only question is; who is qualified to interpret?

    One way our tradition gets around this problem (at least for Sunnis) is by the agreement of all qualified authorities on a specific issue:
    "All Muslims are guided by the Sunnah, but Sunnis stress it, as well as consensus (ijma; the full name of Sunnis is Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Ijma, people of the Sunnah and consensus)."
    http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2280

    Meaning, once we have determined that there are no qualified authorities dissenting on an issue, we pretty much consider it baked and immutable; we can say "Islam says..." since there are numerous hadith mentioning that God will not allow the Ummah to unite upon an error/deviation. This is what the extremists have broken with.

    by those who set rational goals and work, ignoring various rules and taboos, to achieve them
     
    Indeed, this can digress into utilitarian logic - ends justify the means - ethics be damned!

    Peace.

    Excellent point – yes, there is no escaping this. Like any other ethics/legal framework there is the problem of the fallible human mind. The only question is; who is qualified to interpret?

    Wiki:

    Sola scriptura is a formal principle of many Protestant Christian denominations, and one of the five solas. It was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers, who taught that authentication of Scripture is governed by the discernible excellence of the text as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man. Some Evangelical and Baptist denominations state the doctrine of sola scriptura more strongly: Scripture is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    No doubt this is a pillar of Protestant thought. However, there are some issues here - even within precepts of the framework:
    1) Is the text in the original language? I doubt most people know Greek, Aramaic, etc. thus they rely on a translation - someone made the translation - thus you are evaluating something second-hand that has already been processed through someone's mind. Why do the translations differ? The scripture itself is subject to scrutiny since..."Canon? What Canon?"
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/why-are-protestant-and-catholic-bibles-different.html
    2) If it truly is "sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine" to "the rational reader", why are there more Christians sects today than ever before (and growing)? Or maybe that is the point. Can it have or hold to any moral claims, ever? Lesbian priests? Isn't this part of the individualism vs group dynamic that we have discussed - can there be too much religious authority ceded to the individual?
    3) If #2 is correct, then none of these are heresies because they were all based on reading of same scripture:
    https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Trinitarian%20Heresies.html

    I'm not expecting answers, just posing things to think about. For our tradition, it was known that even in the first generation (the Companions [ra]) there were probably only 10-15 (like Ibn Umar [ra], Ibn Abbas [ra], Mu'adh ibn Jabal [ra], Lady Aisha [ra], etc.) out of the hundreds that were qualified to give juristic rulings. The Hanafi school traces itself through a human chain back to Ibn Mas'ud (ra) - even our verbal pronunciation of the Qur'an is traced back through a living chain. This is what keeps us sane:
    "Verily, God does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people but rather he takes away knowledge with the death of the scholars until he leaves no scholar behind and the people turn to the ignorant as their leaders. They are asked to give religious judgments without knowledge, thus they are led astray and lead others astray." - reported in both Muslim and Bukhari

    That kind of 'open it up for everybody and their mom' may work for other traditions (well, kind of - there was the Thirty Years War), but ours is very, very dangerous in the hands of the ignorant or unqualified. Scholars from around the world wrote a letter to Baghdadi denouncing his various claims, it is found here:
    http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/#translations

    One of their complaints was that Daesh were indeed trying to encourage one and all to figure things out for themselves:
    "It is also not permissible to say: 'Islam is simple, and the Prophet (pbuh) and his noble Companions were simple, why complicate Islam?'
    This is precisely what Abu Al-Baraa’ Al-Hindi did in his online video in July 2014. In it he says: 'Open the Qur’an and read the verses on jihad and everything will become clear... all the scholars tell me: “This is a legal obligation (fard), or that isn’t a legal obligation, and this is not the time for jihad”...forget everyone and read the Qur’an and you will know what jihad is.'"

    For us, Islam is calibrated just right; there is no central authority - there is also no lack of authority.

    Peace.
  88. JD says:

    Stow it, Neville Chamberlain. I have no idea how such cowardly groveling and appeasement is honestly believed to keep Americans safe and promote international peace, but it is the most idiotic foreign policy notion I can imagine.

    Read More
  89. Svigor says:

    Trump is no doubt stirring the pot and is as big an ass FDR. The putrid goof is actually proud of doing what FDR did!!!

    Well, he’s proudly throwing FDR in leftist scum’s faces, anyway.

    Read More
  90. Talha says:
    @iffen
    Excellent point – yes, there is no escaping this. Like any other ethics/legal framework there is the problem of the fallible human mind. The only question is; who is qualified to interpret?

    Wiki:

    Sola scriptura is a formal principle of many Protestant Christian denominations, and one of the five solas. It was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers, who taught that authentication of Scripture is governed by the discernible excellence of the text as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man. Some Evangelical and Baptist denominations state the doctrine of sola scriptura more strongly: Scripture is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

    Hey iffen,

    No doubt this is a pillar of Protestant thought. However, there are some issues here – even within precepts of the framework:
    1) Is the text in the original language? I doubt most people know Greek, Aramaic, etc. thus they rely on a translation – someone made the translation – thus you are evaluating something second-hand that has already been processed through someone’s mind. Why do the translations differ? The scripture itself is subject to scrutiny since…”Canon? What Canon?”

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/why-are-protestant-and-catholic-bibles-different.html

    2) If it truly is “sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine” to “the rational reader”, why are there more Christians sects today than ever before (and growing)? Or maybe that is the point. Can it have or hold to any moral claims, ever? Lesbian priests? Isn’t this part of the individualism vs group dynamic that we have discussed – can there be too much religious authority ceded to the individual?
    3) If #2 is correct, then none of these are heresies because they were all based on reading of same scripture:

    https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Trinitarian%20Heresies.html

    I’m not expecting answers, just posing things to think about. For our tradition, it was known that even in the first generation (the Companions [ra]) there were probably only 10-15 (like Ibn Umar [ra], Ibn Abbas [ra], Mu’adh ibn Jabal [ra], Lady Aisha [ra], etc.) out of the hundreds that were qualified to give juristic rulings. The Hanafi school traces itself through a human chain back to Ibn Mas’ud (ra) – even our verbal pronunciation of the Qur’an is traced back through a living chain. This is what keeps us sane:
    “Verily, God does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people but rather he takes away knowledge with the death of the scholars until he leaves no scholar behind and the people turn to the ignorant as their leaders. They are asked to give religious judgments without knowledge, thus they are led astray and lead others astray.” – reported in both Muslim and Bukhari

    That kind of ‘open it up for everybody and their mom’ may work for other traditions (well, kind of – there was the Thirty Years War), but ours is very, very dangerous in the hands of the ignorant or unqualified. Scholars from around the world wrote a letter to Baghdadi denouncing his various claims, it is found here:

    http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/#translations

    One of their complaints was that Daesh were indeed trying to encourage one and all to figure things out for themselves:
    “It is also not permissible to say: ‘Islam is simple, and the Prophet (pbuh) and his noble Companions were simple, why complicate Islam?’
    This is precisely what Abu Al-Baraa’ Al-Hindi did in his online video in July 2014. In it he says: ‘Open the Qur’an and read the verses on jihad and everything will become clear… all the scholars tell me: “This is a legal obligation (fard), or that isn’t a legal obligation, and this is not the time for jihad”…forget everyone and read the Qur’an and you will know what jihad is.’”

    For us, Islam is calibrated just right; there is no central authority – there is also no lack of authority.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I doubt most people know Greek, Aramaic, etc. thus they rely on a translation – someone made the translation

    Yes, ad fontes under the direction of God and the Holy Ghost.

    It is not a problem. It is faith. You are just choosing a different turtle to stand upon.

    The foundation of your faith is that God touched Mohammed, mine was that he touched Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox and most of all, the sainted King James. He couldn’t be a very powerful God if he couldn’t get the correct Bible into my hands.

    Isn’t this part of the individualism vs group dynamic that we have discussed – can there be too much religious authority ceded to the individual?

    Possibly, this problem seems to pop up everywhere.

    but ours is very, very dangerous in the hands of the ignorant or unqualified.

    Yes, they both are. Not to be spiteful, but your shepherds haven’t exactly been keeping all of your sheep rounded up these days. How many years have the Wahhabis been at war with everyone else?

    , @Anon
    As a Catholic, I probably shouldn't respond, but ...

    1) Is the text in the original language?
     
    No*.

    2) If it truly is “sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine” to “the rational reader”, why are there more Christians sects today than ever before (and growing)? Or maybe that is the point.
     
    Precisely. Protestant denominations which are not state religions are based on some degree of mutual agreement (generally an agreement to follow one school of interpretation) and a willingness to meet each other every Sunday. These happy concords are unfortunately often ruptured, whether for doctrinal or personal reasons. We aren't immune to this, either (there was that little affair in 1054) but Protestants of the sola-scriptura sort are more likely to find that their "lights" direct them in different directions occasionally.

    My impression of Islam was something along those lines as well, though I'm probably wrong.


    3) If #2 is correct, then none of these are heresies because they were all based on reading of same scripture
     
    See my point about "lights" above, or if you really want a better explanation read the first chapter of Msgr. Benson's The Religion of the Plain Man

    *Though as explained in (2) most Protestant schools are inherited from scholars (Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, etc.) who do know the original languages and have made a life-long study of the thing. Charismatic sects (like the Pentecostals) seem to hold that God doesn't misdirect a seriously inquiring mind -- though I may have them wrong here. Anyway they're exceptions.

    Some Protestants in the past have been just as maddened as some of your people (see Cromwell, Oliver, or Southcott, Joanna) but it isn't common, and really doesn't happen much at all these days.

  91. Well, he’s proudly throwing FDR in leftist scum’s faces, anyway.

    Well yes, and Stalin did “off” a big bunch of Bolshies, proving that neither is all bad.

    Trump crapped all over the Republikkan morons as well as CHillary, but then so did the idiot, Obomba.

    Read More
  92. iffen says:
    @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    No doubt this is a pillar of Protestant thought. However, there are some issues here - even within precepts of the framework:
    1) Is the text in the original language? I doubt most people know Greek, Aramaic, etc. thus they rely on a translation - someone made the translation - thus you are evaluating something second-hand that has already been processed through someone's mind. Why do the translations differ? The scripture itself is subject to scrutiny since..."Canon? What Canon?"
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/why-are-protestant-and-catholic-bibles-different.html
    2) If it truly is "sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine" to "the rational reader", why are there more Christians sects today than ever before (and growing)? Or maybe that is the point. Can it have or hold to any moral claims, ever? Lesbian priests? Isn't this part of the individualism vs group dynamic that we have discussed - can there be too much religious authority ceded to the individual?
    3) If #2 is correct, then none of these are heresies because they were all based on reading of same scripture:
    https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Trinitarian%20Heresies.html

    I'm not expecting answers, just posing things to think about. For our tradition, it was known that even in the first generation (the Companions [ra]) there were probably only 10-15 (like Ibn Umar [ra], Ibn Abbas [ra], Mu'adh ibn Jabal [ra], Lady Aisha [ra], etc.) out of the hundreds that were qualified to give juristic rulings. The Hanafi school traces itself through a human chain back to Ibn Mas'ud (ra) - even our verbal pronunciation of the Qur'an is traced back through a living chain. This is what keeps us sane:
    "Verily, God does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people but rather he takes away knowledge with the death of the scholars until he leaves no scholar behind and the people turn to the ignorant as their leaders. They are asked to give religious judgments without knowledge, thus they are led astray and lead others astray." - reported in both Muslim and Bukhari

    That kind of 'open it up for everybody and their mom' may work for other traditions (well, kind of - there was the Thirty Years War), but ours is very, very dangerous in the hands of the ignorant or unqualified. Scholars from around the world wrote a letter to Baghdadi denouncing his various claims, it is found here:
    http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/#translations

    One of their complaints was that Daesh were indeed trying to encourage one and all to figure things out for themselves:
    "It is also not permissible to say: 'Islam is simple, and the Prophet (pbuh) and his noble Companions were simple, why complicate Islam?'
    This is precisely what Abu Al-Baraa’ Al-Hindi did in his online video in July 2014. In it he says: 'Open the Qur’an and read the verses on jihad and everything will become clear... all the scholars tell me: “This is a legal obligation (fard), or that isn’t a legal obligation, and this is not the time for jihad”...forget everyone and read the Qur’an and you will know what jihad is.'"

    For us, Islam is calibrated just right; there is no central authority - there is also no lack of authority.

    Peace.

    I doubt most people know Greek, Aramaic, etc. thus they rely on a translation – someone made the translation

    Yes, ad fontes under the direction of God and the Holy Ghost.

    It is not a problem. It is faith. You are just choosing a different turtle to stand upon.

    The foundation of your faith is that God touched Mohammed, mine was that he touched Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox and most of all, the sainted King James. He couldn’t be a very powerful God if he couldn’t get the correct Bible into my hands.

    Isn’t this part of the individualism vs group dynamic that we have discussed – can there be too much religious authority ceded to the individual?

    Possibly, this problem seems to pop up everywhere.

    but ours is very, very dangerous in the hands of the ignorant or unqualified.

    Yes, they both are. Not to be spiteful, but your shepherds haven’t exactly been keeping all of your sheep rounded up these days. How many years have the Wahhabis been at war with everyone else?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    It is not a problem. It is faith.
     
    At the bedrock - yes. There is also an issue of coherence - but this is skirting into theological debate area, so I'm putting on the brakes. My questions were rhetorical.

    but your shepherds haven’t exactly been keeping all of your sheep rounded up these days
     
    Nope - big problem, this. Also the black sheep.

    How many years have the Wahhabis been at war with everyone else?
     
    Well, they kind of died down for decades (after the Ottomans [well they had help from the Egyptians] beat them down) and were basically relegated to the Najd area.

    Dear British,

    What the **** were you thinking?


    Dear US arms manufacturers,

    What the **** are you thinking?

    Signed - most Muslims.

    Actually, this is not a new phenomenon. This is unfortunately a historic repetitive trend within our religion. It crops its head every few centuries - all part of the test and we were warned about it. This is one of my teachers of the hadith sciences talking about it:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52lct3XWGTs

    My advice, steer clear - let us handle it.

    Extremism is an unfortunate side-effect of any religion/philosophy that takes itself seriously. Again, same reason why the Christians of the past slaughtered each other in Europe over heresies, versus today - they took religion very, very seriously; today it's a hobby. Of course - religion-as-hobby has its own issues (like potential civilizational collapse), but that is a subject for another time.

    Peace.
    , @Talha

    "Can there be too much religious authority ceded to the individual?"
    Possibly, this problem seems to pop up everywhere.
     
    One note - what I am saying (and only speaking for my tradition) is that:
    A) I want Muslims to remain steadfast on their religion and take it seriously and keep it relevant.

    Due to the nature of religion, A necessitates:
    B) That there be some kind of normative voice coming from people qualified to speak.

    You cannot have 1 billion+ interpretations on what is legal/ethical in war - it is madness. Or you remove religion completely from war - which can lead to another madness.

    If people simply say that religion is irrelevant, then a trillion+ interpretations don't matter. The flood gates are open, and usually only flow one direction - can (should) you stop 'Pussy Riot'-ification of society? Why can't God touch the heart of Jim Jones? Does 'cult' mean anything if all interpretations are valid? A 'cult of one'?

    The qualified of any field of knowledge are those deemed to be qualified by others in their field that were deemed...

    For instance, in medicine; a physician must be certified by a board of physicians (this may differ slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) which is composed of people who were also certified, etc. This is a useful framework. Do they sometimes certify people who end up being quacks? Sure, but we don't toss out the framework completely due to exceptions to the rule. It is why we take the field of medicine more seriously and would rather take your kid to a certified doctor than, say, your local santeria-practitioner or fresh med-school grad.

    The field of law or engineering works the similarly, for good reason.

    You are seeing what happens in our community when A is stood up without B.

    Peace.
  93. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    No doubt this is a pillar of Protestant thought. However, there are some issues here - even within precepts of the framework:
    1) Is the text in the original language? I doubt most people know Greek, Aramaic, etc. thus they rely on a translation - someone made the translation - thus you are evaluating something second-hand that has already been processed through someone's mind. Why do the translations differ? The scripture itself is subject to scrutiny since..."Canon? What Canon?"
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/why-are-protestant-and-catholic-bibles-different.html
    2) If it truly is "sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine" to "the rational reader", why are there more Christians sects today than ever before (and growing)? Or maybe that is the point. Can it have or hold to any moral claims, ever? Lesbian priests? Isn't this part of the individualism vs group dynamic that we have discussed - can there be too much religious authority ceded to the individual?
    3) If #2 is correct, then none of these are heresies because they were all based on reading of same scripture:
    https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Trinitarian%20Heresies.html

    I'm not expecting answers, just posing things to think about. For our tradition, it was known that even in the first generation (the Companions [ra]) there were probably only 10-15 (like Ibn Umar [ra], Ibn Abbas [ra], Mu'adh ibn Jabal [ra], Lady Aisha [ra], etc.) out of the hundreds that were qualified to give juristic rulings. The Hanafi school traces itself through a human chain back to Ibn Mas'ud (ra) - even our verbal pronunciation of the Qur'an is traced back through a living chain. This is what keeps us sane:
    "Verily, God does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people but rather he takes away knowledge with the death of the scholars until he leaves no scholar behind and the people turn to the ignorant as their leaders. They are asked to give religious judgments without knowledge, thus they are led astray and lead others astray." - reported in both Muslim and Bukhari

    That kind of 'open it up for everybody and their mom' may work for other traditions (well, kind of - there was the Thirty Years War), but ours is very, very dangerous in the hands of the ignorant or unqualified. Scholars from around the world wrote a letter to Baghdadi denouncing his various claims, it is found here:
    http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/#translations

    One of their complaints was that Daesh were indeed trying to encourage one and all to figure things out for themselves:
    "It is also not permissible to say: 'Islam is simple, and the Prophet (pbuh) and his noble Companions were simple, why complicate Islam?'
    This is precisely what Abu Al-Baraa’ Al-Hindi did in his online video in July 2014. In it he says: 'Open the Qur’an and read the verses on jihad and everything will become clear... all the scholars tell me: “This is a legal obligation (fard), or that isn’t a legal obligation, and this is not the time for jihad”...forget everyone and read the Qur’an and you will know what jihad is.'"

    For us, Islam is calibrated just right; there is no central authority - there is also no lack of authority.

    Peace.

    As a Catholic, I probably shouldn’t respond, but …

    1) Is the text in the original language?

    No*.

    2) If it truly is “sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine” to “the rational reader”, why are there more Christians sects today than ever before (and growing)? Or maybe that is the point.

    Precisely. Protestant denominations which are not state religions are based on some degree of mutual agreement (generally an agreement to follow one school of interpretation) and a willingness to meet each other every Sunday. These happy concords are unfortunately often ruptured, whether for doctrinal or personal reasons. We aren’t immune to this, either (there was that little affair in 1054) but Protestants of the sola-scriptura sort are more likely to find that their “lights” direct them in different directions occasionally.

    My impression of Islam was something along those lines as well, though I’m probably wrong.

    3) If #2 is correct, then none of these are heresies because they were all based on reading of same scripture

    See my point about “lights” above, or if you really want a better explanation read the first chapter of Msgr. Benson’s The Religion of the Plain Man

    *Though as explained in (2) most Protestant schools are inherited from scholars (Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, etc.) who do know the original languages and have made a life-long study of the thing. Charismatic sects (like the Pentecostals) seem to hold that God doesn’t misdirect a seriously inquiring mind — though I may have them wrong here. Anyway they’re exceptions.

    Some Protestants in the past have been just as maddened as some of your people (see Cromwell, Oliver, or Southcott, Joanna) but it isn’t common, and really doesn’t happen much at all these days.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    As a Catholic, I probably shouldn’t respond
     
    Nonsense...come on in the water is fine.

    My impression of Islam was something along those lines as well, though I’m probably wrong.
     
    If you have the time, this is a very good read on traditional Islamic legal tradition of the past 14 centuries:
    "The main point of all of this is that while every Muslim can take the foundation of his Islam directly from the Qur’an and hadith; namely, the main beliefs and general ethical principles he has to follow—for the specific details of fiqh of Islamic practice, knowing a Qur’anic verse or hadith may be worlds apart from knowing the shari‘a ruling, unless one is a qualified mujtahid or is citing one."
    http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/madhhabstlk.htm

    I've heard Cromwell described as Taliban - though I admit I haven't enough about him.

    Thanks for the insights!

    Peace.
  94. Talha says:
    @iffen
    I doubt most people know Greek, Aramaic, etc. thus they rely on a translation – someone made the translation

    Yes, ad fontes under the direction of God and the Holy Ghost.

    It is not a problem. It is faith. You are just choosing a different turtle to stand upon.

    The foundation of your faith is that God touched Mohammed, mine was that he touched Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox and most of all, the sainted King James. He couldn’t be a very powerful God if he couldn’t get the correct Bible into my hands.

    Isn’t this part of the individualism vs group dynamic that we have discussed – can there be too much religious authority ceded to the individual?

    Possibly, this problem seems to pop up everywhere.

    but ours is very, very dangerous in the hands of the ignorant or unqualified.

    Yes, they both are. Not to be spiteful, but your shepherds haven’t exactly been keeping all of your sheep rounded up these days. How many years have the Wahhabis been at war with everyone else?

    Hey iffen,

    It is not a problem. It is faith.

    At the bedrock – yes. There is also an issue of coherence – but this is skirting into theological debate area, so I’m putting on the brakes. My questions were rhetorical.

    but your shepherds haven’t exactly been keeping all of your sheep rounded up these days

    Nope – big problem, this. Also the black sheep.

    How many years have the Wahhabis been at war with everyone else?

    Well, they kind of died down for decades (after the Ottomans [well they had help from the Egyptians] beat them down) and were basically relegated to the Najd area.

    Dear British,

    What the **** were you thinking?

    Dear US arms manufacturers,

    What the **** are you thinking?

    Signed – most Muslims.

    Actually, this is not a new phenomenon. This is unfortunately a historic repetitive trend within our religion. It crops its head every few centuries – all part of the test and we were warned about it. This is one of my teachers of the hadith sciences talking about it:

    My advice, steer clear – let us handle it.

    Extremism is an unfortunate side-effect of any religion/philosophy that takes itself seriously. Again, same reason why the Christians of the past slaughtered each other in Europe over heresies, versus today – they took religion very, very seriously; today it’s a hobby. Of course – religion-as-hobby has its own issues (like potential civilizational collapse), but that is a subject for another time.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Dear British,

    What the **** were you thinking?

    Dear US arms manufacturers,

    What the **** are you thinking?

    Signed – most Muslims.
     
    You answered your own question here: they/we were thinking of geopolitical rather than moral issues. Like almost every other time someone does this, it came around to bite us eventually.
  95. Talha says:
    @iffen
    I doubt most people know Greek, Aramaic, etc. thus they rely on a translation – someone made the translation

    Yes, ad fontes under the direction of God and the Holy Ghost.

    It is not a problem. It is faith. You are just choosing a different turtle to stand upon.

    The foundation of your faith is that God touched Mohammed, mine was that he touched Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox and most of all, the sainted King James. He couldn’t be a very powerful God if he couldn’t get the correct Bible into my hands.

    Isn’t this part of the individualism vs group dynamic that we have discussed – can there be too much religious authority ceded to the individual?

    Possibly, this problem seems to pop up everywhere.

    but ours is very, very dangerous in the hands of the ignorant or unqualified.

    Yes, they both are. Not to be spiteful, but your shepherds haven’t exactly been keeping all of your sheep rounded up these days. How many years have the Wahhabis been at war with everyone else?

    “Can there be too much religious authority ceded to the individual?”
    Possibly, this problem seems to pop up everywhere.

    One note – what I am saying (and only speaking for my tradition) is that:
    A) I want Muslims to remain steadfast on their religion and take it seriously and keep it relevant.

    Due to the nature of religion, A necessitates:
    B) That there be some kind of normative voice coming from people qualified to speak.

    You cannot have 1 billion+ interpretations on what is legal/ethical in war – it is madness. Or you remove religion completely from war – which can lead to another madness.

    If people simply say that religion is irrelevant, then a trillion+ interpretations don’t matter. The flood gates are open, and usually only flow one direction – can (should) you stop ‘Pussy Riot’-ification of society? Why can’t God touch the heart of Jim Jones? Does ‘cult’ mean anything if all interpretations are valid? A ‘cult of one’?

    The qualified of any field of knowledge are those deemed to be qualified by others in their field that were deemed…

    For instance, in medicine; a physician must be certified by a board of physicians (this may differ slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) which is composed of people who were also certified, etc. This is a useful framework. Do they sometimes certify people who end up being quacks? Sure, but we don’t toss out the framework completely due to exceptions to the rule. It is why we take the field of medicine more seriously and would rather take your kid to a certified doctor than, say, your local santeria-practitioner or fresh med-school grad.

    The field of law or engineering works the similarly, for good reason.

    You are seeing what happens in our community when A is stood up without B.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I understand what you are saying and it seems like a good method. I would just like for it to work a little better. As to the Protestants, it's Prometheus, or Pandora, or toothpaste that can't be put back into the tube, or however one wants to look at it.

    Speaking of cults, Christians don't have all the fun.


    On women, for example, a contemporary said that some of the Khorramites: . . . believe in communal access to women, provided that the women agree, and in free access to everything in which the self takes pleasure and to which nature inclines, as long as no-one is harmed thereby
     
    Love this:

    They say that a woman is like a flower, no matter who smells it, nothing is detracted from it.
     
    Axworthy, Michael. A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind
  96. Talha says:
    @Anon
    As a Catholic, I probably shouldn't respond, but ...

    1) Is the text in the original language?
     
    No*.

    2) If it truly is “sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine” to “the rational reader”, why are there more Christians sects today than ever before (and growing)? Or maybe that is the point.
     
    Precisely. Protestant denominations which are not state religions are based on some degree of mutual agreement (generally an agreement to follow one school of interpretation) and a willingness to meet each other every Sunday. These happy concords are unfortunately often ruptured, whether for doctrinal or personal reasons. We aren't immune to this, either (there was that little affair in 1054) but Protestants of the sola-scriptura sort are more likely to find that their "lights" direct them in different directions occasionally.

    My impression of Islam was something along those lines as well, though I'm probably wrong.


    3) If #2 is correct, then none of these are heresies because they were all based on reading of same scripture
     
    See my point about "lights" above, or if you really want a better explanation read the first chapter of Msgr. Benson's The Religion of the Plain Man

    *Though as explained in (2) most Protestant schools are inherited from scholars (Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, etc.) who do know the original languages and have made a life-long study of the thing. Charismatic sects (like the Pentecostals) seem to hold that God doesn't misdirect a seriously inquiring mind -- though I may have them wrong here. Anyway they're exceptions.

    Some Protestants in the past have been just as maddened as some of your people (see Cromwell, Oliver, or Southcott, Joanna) but it isn't common, and really doesn't happen much at all these days.

    As a Catholic, I probably shouldn’t respond

    Nonsense…come on in the water is fine.

    My impression of Islam was something along those lines as well, though I’m probably wrong.

    If you have the time, this is a very good read on traditional Islamic legal tradition of the past 14 centuries:
    “The main point of all of this is that while every Muslim can take the foundation of his Islam directly from the Qur’an and hadith; namely, the main beliefs and general ethical principles he has to follow—for the specific details of fiqh of Islamic practice, knowing a Qur’anic verse or hadith may be worlds apart from knowing the shari‘a ruling, unless one is a qualified mujtahid or is citing one.”

    http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/madhhabstlk.htm

    I’ve heard Cromwell described as Taliban – though I admit I haven’t enough about him.

    Thanks for the insights!

    Peace.

    Read More
  97. iffen says:
    @Talha

    "Can there be too much religious authority ceded to the individual?"
    Possibly, this problem seems to pop up everywhere.
     
    One note - what I am saying (and only speaking for my tradition) is that:
    A) I want Muslims to remain steadfast on their religion and take it seriously and keep it relevant.

    Due to the nature of religion, A necessitates:
    B) That there be some kind of normative voice coming from people qualified to speak.

    You cannot have 1 billion+ interpretations on what is legal/ethical in war - it is madness. Or you remove religion completely from war - which can lead to another madness.

    If people simply say that religion is irrelevant, then a trillion+ interpretations don't matter. The flood gates are open, and usually only flow one direction - can (should) you stop 'Pussy Riot'-ification of society? Why can't God touch the heart of Jim Jones? Does 'cult' mean anything if all interpretations are valid? A 'cult of one'?

    The qualified of any field of knowledge are those deemed to be qualified by others in their field that were deemed...

    For instance, in medicine; a physician must be certified by a board of physicians (this may differ slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) which is composed of people who were also certified, etc. This is a useful framework. Do they sometimes certify people who end up being quacks? Sure, but we don't toss out the framework completely due to exceptions to the rule. It is why we take the field of medicine more seriously and would rather take your kid to a certified doctor than, say, your local santeria-practitioner or fresh med-school grad.

    The field of law or engineering works the similarly, for good reason.

    You are seeing what happens in our community when A is stood up without B.

    Peace.

    I understand what you are saying and it seems like a good method. I would just like for it to work a little better. As to the Protestants, it’s Prometheus, or Pandora, or toothpaste that can’t be put back into the tube, or however one wants to look at it.

    Speaking of cults, Christians don’t have all the fun.

    On women, for example, a contemporary said that some of the Khorramites: . . . believe in communal access to women, provided that the women agree, and in free access to everything in which the self takes pleasure and to which nature inclines, as long as no-one is harmed thereby

    Love this:

    They say that a woman is like a flower, no matter who smells it, nothing is detracted from it.

    Axworthy, Michael. A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind

    Read More
  98. There are Christian Zionist lunatics among sola scriptura enthusiasts, specially in the USA. The late great Jack T. Chick, who published tiny pamphlets, was one of them. He had a special detestation of Catholicism although his range of targets was very wide.

    Read More
  99. […] of ISIS: Battling the Menace, discusses why Donald Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban’ will lead to more terrorist attacks instead of preventing them; and why Al-Qaeda’s greatest success wasn’t bringing down […]

    Read More
  100. krollchem says:
    @Talha
    Hey KC,

    Few things...

    The raid was against al-Qaeda in Yemen
     
    I give as much credence to official statements from the Trump administration as I did with Obama's in this regard. But, let's assume it was al-Qaeda. We are already beefing up our border and immigration security and you stated that this whack-a-mole policy is not going to work, so...what the **** are we bombing Yemen for?

    this is the only tool that President Trump has now
     
    I disagree. He can and should de-escalate - big time. You mentioned that the reason certain groups are growing in Yemen is because of the civil war and instability which is fueled by Saudi war-making. They get their munitions from us and the Brits (which work with the hardware we sold them) - we can cut off the supply tomorrow if we wanted.

    Ultimately he will have to shut down the Salafist/Wahhabist religious university in Medina
     
    Again, he should stay out of any internal theological issues within the Muslim world. Many of the top Salafi/Wahhabi scholars have come out strong against extremist groups like Daesh. It's usually the young hot-heads that know just enough to be volatile that cause the most problems.
    Going in for one side will cause the Salafi/Wahhabi banner to be presented as the rallying cry against Western imperialism. It is completely counterproductive - more meddling is not what we need.

    and shutdown all Salafist mosques in the US
     
    If the people of the US want to make restrictions on the Bill of Rights, it is their prerogative. Russia also monitors and intervenes in persons or mosques that are deemed to be potentially subversive.

    I trust you understand French and offer this video that explains the threat
     
    I don't, but as a Muslim, I am quite aware of the threat of Salafi/Wahhabi extremists who have been butchering us like there's no tomorrow:
    www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMIReport1May31October2015.pdf

    And I'm also aware of the nuances between groups like Daesh and run-of-the-mill non-violent Muslims that espouse Salafi or Wahhabi teachings.

    Ultimately, sanctions against Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and the other gulf states will be required to force them to renounce the Salafist ideology.
     
    Again, counterproductive. You are looking at it through some kind of Cold War lens - did this work with Cuba or did they double down? If one really wants to hurt them then; 1) stop their ability to invest in or benefit economically from the West and 2) stop supplying them with weapon systems which they can pass on to extremist proxies.

    In the end “Winter is Coming”
     
    Though I'm a big fan of the book series - I do not look forward to any news of catastrophic collapse, but maybe a return to more moderate means of living is best for us all in the long run, especially if all the 'progress' is built on an unstable and unsustainable foundation in the first place...
    "It is right of God that He lowers whatever raises itself in the world." - reported in Bukhari

    Peace.

    “so…what the **** are we bombing Yemen for?”

    The attack on al-Qaeda in the Saudi controlled al Bayda Governorate was planned under the Obama administration and ordered by Trump and was carried out by US Navy Seal team 6 and UAE special forces (Erik Prince’s private army?)

    http://wtkr.com/2017/02/01/inside-the-yemen-raid-women-al-qaeda-fighters-surprised-us-forces/amp/

    http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/mercenaries-charge-uae-forces-fighting-yemen-764309832

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/world/middleeast/15prince.html

    Further complicating this conflict is that Saudi Arabia supports of Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi as UAE has been supporting Khaled Bahah which explains why Saudi and UAE forces have attacked each other occasionally.

    The UAE is also now allied with Egypt and General Haftar in attacking the Operation Dawn Islamist militias fighting for control of Tripoli. The Obama administration was apparently “Furious After Source Of “Mystery” Libya Bombing Raids Revealed”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-25/us-furious-after-source-mystery-libya-bombing-raids-revealed

    https://warisboring.com/erik-princes-mercenaries-are-bombing-libya-88fcb8e55292#.2qjle1egk

    Apparently, Trump didn’t let Obama in on the plan! Stay tuned for a major Middle East shift in alliances.

    Under Trump, I doubt that the US will be bombing the Houthi’s and allied Sunni Muslims who have a legitimate right to self-rule free of the Saudi puppet Hadi. I would prefer that the US pressure Saudi Arabia to stop their war of aggression against the Houthi’s and provide humanitarian aid to Yemen. This may take time as Trump is also facing the fact that Yemen has oil reserves that the Saudis and Western oil companies would like to get their hands on. He may have to fire certain cabinet members and threaten western allies in order to weaken the Saudi Salafist/Wahhabist ideology spreading throughout the world.

    Adding to Saudi Arabia’s woes is that their oil reserves are being depleted and the water cut increased. Already Saudi Arabia has added a VAP tax across the kingdom

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/31/saudi-arabia-tax-approved-oil-revenues-slump.

    Saudi Arabia may ultimately break up, freeing northeast Saudia Arabia to the Shia residents who can then engage in self-rule free of the corrupt and evil Saudi regime.

    Read More
  101. Krollchem says:
    @Talha
    Hey KC,

    Few things...

    The raid was against al-Qaeda in Yemen
     
    I give as much credence to official statements from the Trump administration as I did with Obama's in this regard. But, let's assume it was al-Qaeda. We are already beefing up our border and immigration security and you stated that this whack-a-mole policy is not going to work, so...what the **** are we bombing Yemen for?

    this is the only tool that President Trump has now
     
    I disagree. He can and should de-escalate - big time. You mentioned that the reason certain groups are growing in Yemen is because of the civil war and instability which is fueled by Saudi war-making. They get their munitions from us and the Brits (which work with the hardware we sold them) - we can cut off the supply tomorrow if we wanted.

    Ultimately he will have to shut down the Salafist/Wahhabist religious university in Medina
     
    Again, he should stay out of any internal theological issues within the Muslim world. Many of the top Salafi/Wahhabi scholars have come out strong against extremist groups like Daesh. It's usually the young hot-heads that know just enough to be volatile that cause the most problems.
    Going in for one side will cause the Salafi/Wahhabi banner to be presented as the rallying cry against Western imperialism. It is completely counterproductive - more meddling is not what we need.

    and shutdown all Salafist mosques in the US
     
    If the people of the US want to make restrictions on the Bill of Rights, it is their prerogative. Russia also monitors and intervenes in persons or mosques that are deemed to be potentially subversive.

    I trust you understand French and offer this video that explains the threat
     
    I don't, but as a Muslim, I am quite aware of the threat of Salafi/Wahhabi extremists who have been butchering us like there's no tomorrow:
    www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMIReport1May31October2015.pdf

    And I'm also aware of the nuances between groups like Daesh and run-of-the-mill non-violent Muslims that espouse Salafi or Wahhabi teachings.

    Ultimately, sanctions against Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and the other gulf states will be required to force them to renounce the Salafist ideology.
     
    Again, counterproductive. You are looking at it through some kind of Cold War lens - did this work with Cuba or did they double down? If one really wants to hurt them then; 1) stop their ability to invest in or benefit economically from the West and 2) stop supplying them with weapon systems which they can pass on to extremist proxies.

    In the end “Winter is Coming”
     
    Though I'm a big fan of the book series - I do not look forward to any news of catastrophic collapse, but maybe a return to more moderate means of living is best for us all in the long run, especially if all the 'progress' is built on an unstable and unsustainable foundation in the first place...
    "It is right of God that He lowers whatever raises itself in the world." - reported in Bukhari

    Peace.

    “They get their munitions from us and the Brits (which work with the hardware we sold them) – we can cut off the supply tomorrow if we wanted”

    The US “Merchants of death” will try to oppose Trump in the cut off the flow of arms to the Saudis for money. Remember that Trump met, and agrees with with Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard that we must stop supporting terrorists (remember the CIA trained and equipped over five thousand fighters with immediately joined al-Qaeda) https://www.f3nws.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-calls-on-us-govt-to-stop-supporting-terrorists-after-meeting-syria-civilians-assad-FBeTKC

    She subsequently submitted a bill to stop aid the terrorists and joined in a fact finding tour in Syria with Dennis Kucinich, in opposition to certain Jewish groups: http://video.foxnews.com/v/5297708217001/?#sp=show-clips

    If Trump can cuts off arms shipments from the US, all European countries (UK, Poland, Ukraine, France, Germany, etc.) will step in and make up the difference. Cooperation with Russia in taking out al-Qaeda/al-Nusra/Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and ISIS in Syria and Iraq combined with the US hopefully pulling their back from the Baltic states, Poland and Ukraine should also throw the EU states into disarray.

    Remember that the EU has four presidents and none of them are elected! If he is smart, Trump can expose the EU as the dictatorship it is to discredit it. Perhaps, the coming Brexit hard exit and the National Front gains in the French election effort may result in the breakup of the EU into states that can then be pressured to stop arms sales to radical Islamic groups.

    Read More
  102. Krollchem says:
    @Talha
    Hey KC,

    Few things...

    The raid was against al-Qaeda in Yemen
     
    I give as much credence to official statements from the Trump administration as I did with Obama's in this regard. But, let's assume it was al-Qaeda. We are already beefing up our border and immigration security and you stated that this whack-a-mole policy is not going to work, so...what the **** are we bombing Yemen for?

    this is the only tool that President Trump has now
     
    I disagree. He can and should de-escalate - big time. You mentioned that the reason certain groups are growing in Yemen is because of the civil war and instability which is fueled by Saudi war-making. They get their munitions from us and the Brits (which work with the hardware we sold them) - we can cut off the supply tomorrow if we wanted.

    Ultimately he will have to shut down the Salafist/Wahhabist religious university in Medina
     
    Again, he should stay out of any internal theological issues within the Muslim world. Many of the top Salafi/Wahhabi scholars have come out strong against extremist groups like Daesh. It's usually the young hot-heads that know just enough to be volatile that cause the most problems.
    Going in for one side will cause the Salafi/Wahhabi banner to be presented as the rallying cry against Western imperialism. It is completely counterproductive - more meddling is not what we need.

    and shutdown all Salafist mosques in the US
     
    If the people of the US want to make restrictions on the Bill of Rights, it is their prerogative. Russia also monitors and intervenes in persons or mosques that are deemed to be potentially subversive.

    I trust you understand French and offer this video that explains the threat
     
    I don't, but as a Muslim, I am quite aware of the threat of Salafi/Wahhabi extremists who have been butchering us like there's no tomorrow:
    www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMIReport1May31October2015.pdf

    And I'm also aware of the nuances between groups like Daesh and run-of-the-mill non-violent Muslims that espouse Salafi or Wahhabi teachings.

    Ultimately, sanctions against Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and the other gulf states will be required to force them to renounce the Salafist ideology.
     
    Again, counterproductive. You are looking at it through some kind of Cold War lens - did this work with Cuba or did they double down? If one really wants to hurt them then; 1) stop their ability to invest in or benefit economically from the West and 2) stop supplying them with weapon systems which they can pass on to extremist proxies.

    In the end “Winter is Coming”
     
    Though I'm a big fan of the book series - I do not look forward to any news of catastrophic collapse, but maybe a return to more moderate means of living is best for us all in the long run, especially if all the 'progress' is built on an unstable and unsustainable foundation in the first place...
    "It is right of God that He lowers whatever raises itself in the world." - reported in Bukhari

    Peace.

    “I disagree. He can and should de-escalate”

    Trump is attempting a Taft Republican strategy of nationalism and not globalism which is reflected in widespread opposition by EU countries and the Democratic party. Trump appears to recognize the crimes of the Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan/Bush I, Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, Obama/Clinton II regimes in creating destruction in the Middle East and North Africa for oil profits.

    Trump recognizes that part of this effort requires wiping out ISIS and al-Qaeda (al-Nusra, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham), and the 57 flavors that recently joined them in Syria. and will carry out that mission. Remember that terrorists from 96 countries are carrying out the attacks in Syria and Iraq and comprise over 2/3s of the fighters.

    Read More
  103. krollchem says:
    @Talha
    Hey KC,

    Few things...

    The raid was against al-Qaeda in Yemen
     
    I give as much credence to official statements from the Trump administration as I did with Obama's in this regard. But, let's assume it was al-Qaeda. We are already beefing up our border and immigration security and you stated that this whack-a-mole policy is not going to work, so...what the **** are we bombing Yemen for?

    this is the only tool that President Trump has now
     
    I disagree. He can and should de-escalate - big time. You mentioned that the reason certain groups are growing in Yemen is because of the civil war and instability which is fueled by Saudi war-making. They get their munitions from us and the Brits (which work with the hardware we sold them) - we can cut off the supply tomorrow if we wanted.

    Ultimately he will have to shut down the Salafist/Wahhabist religious university in Medina
     
    Again, he should stay out of any internal theological issues within the Muslim world. Many of the top Salafi/Wahhabi scholars have come out strong against extremist groups like Daesh. It's usually the young hot-heads that know just enough to be volatile that cause the most problems.
    Going in for one side will cause the Salafi/Wahhabi banner to be presented as the rallying cry against Western imperialism. It is completely counterproductive - more meddling is not what we need.

    and shutdown all Salafist mosques in the US
     
    If the people of the US want to make restrictions on the Bill of Rights, it is their prerogative. Russia also monitors and intervenes in persons or mosques that are deemed to be potentially subversive.

    I trust you understand French and offer this video that explains the threat
     
    I don't, but as a Muslim, I am quite aware of the threat of Salafi/Wahhabi extremists who have been butchering us like there's no tomorrow:
    www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMIReport1May31October2015.pdf

    And I'm also aware of the nuances between groups like Daesh and run-of-the-mill non-violent Muslims that espouse Salafi or Wahhabi teachings.

    Ultimately, sanctions against Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and the other gulf states will be required to force them to renounce the Salafist ideology.
     
    Again, counterproductive. You are looking at it through some kind of Cold War lens - did this work with Cuba or did they double down? If one really wants to hurt them then; 1) stop their ability to invest in or benefit economically from the West and 2) stop supplying them with weapon systems which they can pass on to extremist proxies.

    In the end “Winter is Coming”
     
    Though I'm a big fan of the book series - I do not look forward to any news of catastrophic collapse, but maybe a return to more moderate means of living is best for us all in the long run, especially if all the 'progress' is built on an unstable and unsustainable foundation in the first place...
    "It is right of God that He lowers whatever raises itself in the world." - reported in Bukhari

    Peace.

    “Again, he should stay out of any internal theological issues within the Muslim world. Many of the top Salafi/Wahhabi scholars have come out strong against extremist groups like Daesh”

    Wrong. The head of the Salafist/Wahhabist religious university in Medina has called to elimination of non-believers worldwide. Thus it is the very leadership of this extreme ideology that is the problem. Remember that Saudi Arabia spends almost as much on spreading their ideology as they do on the military.

    Sheikh ‘Aadel Al-Kalbani, former imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, stated in 2014 that “ISIS is a true product of Salafism, and we must deal with it with full transparency.”

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/11/senior-saudi-salafi-cleric-the-islamic-state-is-a-true-product-of-salafism

    He is perhaps the most tolerant Salafist Iman in Suadi Arabia but still considers all Shiite clerics as heretics (what must he think of Alawites? )

    https://en.europenews.dk/Sheikh-Kalbani-All-Shiite-clerics-are-heretics-97993.html

    In Saudi Arabia, half the population of 18 million sees Wahabism as oppressive including some Sunni muslims as well as all Shia muslims in Saudi Arabia. Islamic University of Medina reserves 85 per cent of the places for foreigners, further accelerating the propagation of this fanatical sect,

    There are also anti-Saudi Wahabist who consist of many of the ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorists
    Salafists also consider moderate muslims to be infidels and Wahhabism is considered as a austere vile intolerant sect by the majority of Muslims. Salafists are also dominant in Qatar and significant in Tunisia, Somalia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Dubai and spreading worldwide including even Iran

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey KC,

    You seem to think it is a great idea for Trump to take on our Salafi/Wahhabi extremists. I completely disagree. Involving the US in the Middle East is a major cause of this nonsense spreading. The more the US bombs, the more youth are going to get radicalized. It is time to de-escalate now - immediately. I thought Trump was a better candidate specifically because I was hoping for a quick draw down and not business as usual.

    If 'Trump is attempting a Taft Republican strategy of nationalism' then he needs to stay out of other people's civil wars - period. That is the Taft way - ask Dr. Ron Paul - he knows better than anyone.

    The Muslim community has made huge strides in bringing disparate voices together in combating extremism and sectarianism over the last few years - including sensible Salafi and Wahhabi scholars:
    "They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash’arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim."
    http://ammanmessage.com/

    We do not need the US screwing it up any more than they already have. If they officially come in and support Sunni Orthodoxy - we will be labeled as stooges and immediately disregarded. The only thing the US should be doing is being worried about the safety of their own citizens.

    The head of the Salafist/Wahhabist religious university in Medina has called to elimination of non-believers worldwide.
     
    Give me a solid source (not some Zionist supplied one) for that - this is a very incendiary statement. We are quite aware of the problems in Salafi/Wahhabi methodology and we are also quite aware that many of them are not extremists.
    http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/08/19/Saudi-mufti-ISIS-is-enemy-No-1-of-Islam-.html

    In fact, find me a senior level Salafi/Wahhabi scholar that supports Daesh. I can't find any except self-taught guys or preachers going around with the label 'Shaykh' - they are Salafi/Wahhabi leaning for sure, but it is irresponsible to say this is what Salafi/Wahhabi scholarship is supporting.

    A brother did a great service in scrutinizing the list of supposed scholars who support Daesh (it is laughable):
    http://www.bilalabdulkareem.com/scholars1/

    but still considers all Shiite clerics as heretics
     
    Catholics consider Protestants to be heretical - again, read the Amman Message - it is signed by senior Salafi scholars along with senior Shiah scholars.

    what must he think of Alawites?
     
    They (along with Druze) aren't Muslim - this is according to normative Sunni Orthodox opinion as the leading Sufi-Scholar Shaykh Muhammad Yaquobi made clear; that we only differ with Salafi/Wahhabis in considering them apostates (since apostasy is an action that can only be committed by a person who is already a Muslim):
    "Although ‘Alawis are considered kufaar [disbelievers] in the Hanafi school, as a sect we accept their legal presence within the Muslim community. They are not to be executed as murtadiin [apostates], because they were not Muslims who rejected Islam. They were born within their sect!"
    http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/sheikh-muhammad-al-yaqoubi-interviewed-by-syria-comment/

    He is also wrote a scholarly refutation of Daesh and declared fighting them legal:
    "Providing authentic quotes that destroy the allegations of ISIS, Shaykh Al-Yaqoubi reaches the conclusion that this group does not represent Islam, its declaration of a caliphate is invalid, and fighting it is an obligation upon Muslims."
    http://www.refutingisis.com/

    This is what I am saying, you don't know how complicated this gets.

    I am sure they would welcome the elimination of the ideology and the return of a Sharif of Mecca.
     
    Yes, but on our terms. We don't want non-Muslims running amok with more 'White man's burden' dreams of fixing our problems. I am a solid Sunni Orthodox Muslim who follows the Hanafi school and belong to a Sufi Order (Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi) - I (and all traditional Sunni Muslims I know) do not want any more non-Muslim interference in an internal matter - have you even spoken to us before making these assumptions? Why do you have the impression that we are waiting for some non-Muslim knights to come sweeping us out of danger.

    Stop selling arms to these regimes, stop siding with anybody in (or help start up) our civil wars, stop destabilizing Muslim countries - that is what we want. Basically, listen to Dr. Ron Paul:
    "Radical Islamic terrorism is for the most part a reaction to foreign interventionism. It will never be defeated until this simple truth is understood."
    http://www.unz.com/rpaul/trumps-foreign-policy-an-unwise-inconsistency/

    We cannot defeat the ideology with all the chaos going around - there is too much noise. Stop adding to the destabilization.

    Peace.

    Note: A word to the wise; it isn't good to complain about Zionist influence and then get your info from their sources like jihadwatch:
    http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/robert-spencer-david-horowitz-cash-in-on-hate/
  104. krollchem says:
    @Krollchem
    The raid was against al-Qaeda in Yemen who have been allowed to expand due to Saudi attacks on the Yemen army and Shai fighters:
    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/01/29/spare-us-the-theatrics/

    I agree that the whack-a-mole method against Salafist terrorists will not work, BUT this is the only tool that President Trump has now. Ultimately he will have to shut down the Salafist/Wahhabist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism) religious university in Medina and shutdown all Salafist mosques in the US. I trust you understand French and offer this video that explains the threat:
    Colloque du CF2R sur l'idéologie wahhabite - Partie 1 (1 of 7)
    http://www.stratpol.com/colloque-c2fr-wahhabisme-part-1

    Ultimately, sanctions against Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and the other gulf states will be required to force them to renounce the Salafist ideology. The main problem is that the US political class (all parties) must be purged of all those bribed by these rich Salafist states. The Trump family will suffer economically as they have four properties in Saudi Arabia and a couple more in UAE!

    Trump will also have to face almost all of the EU political class as they have also been bought and paid for by the Salafist states.

    In the end "Winter is Coming" whether Trump succeeds or not:
    https://forecastingintelligence.org/2016/07/14/winter-is-coming/

    “Going in for one side will cause the Salafi/Wahhabi banner to be presented as the rallying cry against Western imperialism.”

    Doubtful, as most Muslims around the world are peaceful and despise the Salafist ideology. I am sure they would welcome the elimination of the ideology and the return of a Sharif of Mecca.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_bin_Ali,_Sharif_of_Mecca

    Read More
  105. krollchem says:
    @Talha
    Hey KC,

    Few things...

    The raid was against al-Qaeda in Yemen
     
    I give as much credence to official statements from the Trump administration as I did with Obama's in this regard. But, let's assume it was al-Qaeda. We are already beefing up our border and immigration security and you stated that this whack-a-mole policy is not going to work, so...what the **** are we bombing Yemen for?

    this is the only tool that President Trump has now
     
    I disagree. He can and should de-escalate - big time. You mentioned that the reason certain groups are growing in Yemen is because of the civil war and instability which is fueled by Saudi war-making. They get their munitions from us and the Brits (which work with the hardware we sold them) - we can cut off the supply tomorrow if we wanted.

    Ultimately he will have to shut down the Salafist/Wahhabist religious university in Medina
     
    Again, he should stay out of any internal theological issues within the Muslim world. Many of the top Salafi/Wahhabi scholars have come out strong against extremist groups like Daesh. It's usually the young hot-heads that know just enough to be volatile that cause the most problems.
    Going in for one side will cause the Salafi/Wahhabi banner to be presented as the rallying cry against Western imperialism. It is completely counterproductive - more meddling is not what we need.

    and shutdown all Salafist mosques in the US
     
    If the people of the US want to make restrictions on the Bill of Rights, it is their prerogative. Russia also monitors and intervenes in persons or mosques that are deemed to be potentially subversive.

    I trust you understand French and offer this video that explains the threat
     
    I don't, but as a Muslim, I am quite aware of the threat of Salafi/Wahhabi extremists who have been butchering us like there's no tomorrow:
    www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMIReport1May31October2015.pdf

    And I'm also aware of the nuances between groups like Daesh and run-of-the-mill non-violent Muslims that espouse Salafi or Wahhabi teachings.

    Ultimately, sanctions against Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and the other gulf states will be required to force them to renounce the Salafist ideology.
     
    Again, counterproductive. You are looking at it through some kind of Cold War lens - did this work with Cuba or did they double down? If one really wants to hurt them then; 1) stop their ability to invest in or benefit economically from the West and 2) stop supplying them with weapon systems which they can pass on to extremist proxies.

    In the end “Winter is Coming”
     
    Though I'm a big fan of the book series - I do not look forward to any news of catastrophic collapse, but maybe a return to more moderate means of living is best for us all in the long run, especially if all the 'progress' is built on an unstable and unsustainable foundation in the first place...
    "It is right of God that He lowers whatever raises itself in the world." - reported in Bukhari

    Peace.

    “Muslims I have talked to don’t necessarily see this change in policy as ‘oppressive’ – inconvenient, to be sure, but hardly ‘oppressive’”

    Agreed. However, I object to the Jewish exemption to the Executive Order, which makes the order potentially illegal , except half the US supreme court in Jewish (a Zionist Jews have also been recently shown to be a terrorist in Canada)

    Jewish governance predominates in the US with almost all US political leaders paying homage to Israel on paid visits as soon as they get elected. In addition, almost all MP in the UK must join the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI):
    “Taking Down” British Officials-Israel conspires against the Mother of Parliaments

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/taking-down-british-officials/

    See also comment 28 by Joe Franklin for a litany of issues with Zionism.

    All this conflict between the Abraham sourced religions leads me to pantheism with a twist of Druid (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/) and Daoism Satori (Watts and Suzuki).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    except half the US supreme court in Jewish
     
    That's four-and-a-half. Which one is the Mischling?

    Or perhaps all of them are. The math works that way, too.
  106. krollchem says:
    @Talha
    Hey KC,

    Few things...

    The raid was against al-Qaeda in Yemen
     
    I give as much credence to official statements from the Trump administration as I did with Obama's in this regard. But, let's assume it was al-Qaeda. We are already beefing up our border and immigration security and you stated that this whack-a-mole policy is not going to work, so...what the **** are we bombing Yemen for?

    this is the only tool that President Trump has now
     
    I disagree. He can and should de-escalate - big time. You mentioned that the reason certain groups are growing in Yemen is because of the civil war and instability which is fueled by Saudi war-making. They get their munitions from us and the Brits (which work with the hardware we sold them) - we can cut off the supply tomorrow if we wanted.

    Ultimately he will have to shut down the Salafist/Wahhabist religious university in Medina
     
    Again, he should stay out of any internal theological issues within the Muslim world. Many of the top Salafi/Wahhabi scholars have come out strong against extremist groups like Daesh. It's usually the young hot-heads that know just enough to be volatile that cause the most problems.
    Going in for one side will cause the Salafi/Wahhabi banner to be presented as the rallying cry against Western imperialism. It is completely counterproductive - more meddling is not what we need.

    and shutdown all Salafist mosques in the US
     
    If the people of the US want to make restrictions on the Bill of Rights, it is their prerogative. Russia also monitors and intervenes in persons or mosques that are deemed to be potentially subversive.

    I trust you understand French and offer this video that explains the threat
     
    I don't, but as a Muslim, I am quite aware of the threat of Salafi/Wahhabi extremists who have been butchering us like there's no tomorrow:
    www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMIReport1May31October2015.pdf

    And I'm also aware of the nuances between groups like Daesh and run-of-the-mill non-violent Muslims that espouse Salafi or Wahhabi teachings.

    Ultimately, sanctions against Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and the other gulf states will be required to force them to renounce the Salafist ideology.
     
    Again, counterproductive. You are looking at it through some kind of Cold War lens - did this work with Cuba or did they double down? If one really wants to hurt them then; 1) stop their ability to invest in or benefit economically from the West and 2) stop supplying them with weapon systems which they can pass on to extremist proxies.

    In the end “Winter is Coming”
     
    Though I'm a big fan of the book series - I do not look forward to any news of catastrophic collapse, but maybe a return to more moderate means of living is best for us all in the long run, especially if all the 'progress' is built on an unstable and unsustainable foundation in the first place...
    "It is right of God that He lowers whatever raises itself in the world." - reported in Bukhari

    Peace.

    “I do not look forward to any news of catastrophic collapse, but maybe a return to more moderate means of living is best for us all in the long run”

    My comment “Winter is Coming” refers to the Club of Rome System Dynamics study of civilization collapse. I would hope for a catabolic collapse to a more sustainable system as proposed by John Michael Greer

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-flight-to-ephemeral.html

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2012/02/trajectory-of-empires.html

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/01/future-that-wasnt-part-two.html

    In the meantime the US will suffer from what Toynbee calls warbands, which may also be an accurate represention of Al-Qaeda and ISIS

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2012/11/on-border.html

    As for Trump and posters who claim peak oil is a myth, they do not understand EROEI

    https://ourfiniteworld.com/2016/11/17/the-energy-problem-behind-trumps-election/

    http://ourfiniteworld.com/2015/08/26/deflationary-collapse-ahead/

    Read More
  107. @Svigor

    In the end “Winter is Coming” whether Trump succeeds or not:

    https://forecastingintelligence.org/2016/07/14/winter-is-coming/
     
    I'm only partway through that, but the author's wrong. About the timeline. Sure, resource depletion is a thing. But it's going to happen along a much longer timeline than he or his 1970s models predict.

    Just look at all the new oil that is being recovered with new extraction technologies. America can supply all of her own oil, if she wanted to. We're not that far off. The current production glut is keeping prices down, so it's not (as) profitable to extract at the moment.

    Think about all the *(@!ing oil in Siberia, waiting to be discovered. We can't extract it yet, because there's so much cheap oil coming out of the ME, but eventually, it will become profitable to do so.

    Sure, China's going to start guzzling oil like it's going out of style in the 21st century. But Siberia. Peak oil seems to have been pushed waaay back by the shale oil guys. Wait until they get hold of Siberia.

    The timeline for this stuff will be pretty long and gradual, and there will be a lot of innovation in energy production between now and then. I think space colonization will full steam ahead before we get to the terrestrial energy bottleneck.

    Solar power is likely to be a big deal in this century. The sun provides us with an enormous amount of energy on a constant basis.

    I'm confident in predicting that impending existential crises will be human-related, not energy-related. I hope it isn't bad enough to derail the quest for space, AI, etc.

    Disagree – fracking has only been sustained through huge subsidies, and eventually the debt will come home to roost. I don’t think that we will run out of energy, but it’ll be a steady decline as a shadow tax on logistics gradually increases due to cost on fuel.

    Read More
  108. Talha says:
    @krollchem
    “Again, he should stay out of any internal theological issues within the Muslim world. Many of the top Salafi/Wahhabi scholars have come out strong against extremist groups like Daesh”

    Wrong. The head of the Salafist/Wahhabist religious university in Medina has called to elimination of non-believers worldwide. Thus it is the very leadership of this extreme ideology that is the problem. Remember that Saudi Arabia spends almost as much on spreading their ideology as they do on the military.

    Sheikh ‘Aadel Al-Kalbani, former imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, stated in 2014 that “ISIS is a true product of Salafism, and we must deal with it with full transparency.”
    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/11/senior-saudi-salafi-cleric-the-islamic-state-is-a-true-product-of-salafism

    He is perhaps the most tolerant Salafist Iman in Suadi Arabia but still considers all Shiite clerics as heretics (what must he think of Alawites? )
    https://en.europenews.dk/Sheikh-Kalbani-All-Shiite-clerics-are-heretics-97993.html

    In Saudi Arabia, half the population of 18 million sees Wahabism as oppressive including some Sunni muslims as well as all Shia muslims in Saudi Arabia. Islamic University of Medina reserves 85 per cent of the places for foreigners, further accelerating the propagation of this fanatical sect,

    There are also anti-Saudi Wahabist who consist of many of the ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorists
    Salafists also consider moderate muslims to be infidels and Wahhabism is considered as a austere vile intolerant sect by the majority of Muslims. Salafists are also dominant in Qatar and significant in Tunisia, Somalia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Dubai and spreading worldwide including even Iran

    Hey KC,

    You seem to think it is a great idea for Trump to take on our Salafi/Wahhabi extremists. I completely disagree. Involving the US in the Middle East is a major cause of this nonsense spreading. The more the US bombs, the more youth are going to get radicalized. It is time to de-escalate now – immediately. I thought Trump was a better candidate specifically because I was hoping for a quick draw down and not business as usual.

    If ‘Trump is attempting a Taft Republican strategy of nationalism’ then he needs to stay out of other people’s civil wars – period. That is the Taft way – ask Dr. Ron Paul – he knows better than anyone.

    The Muslim community has made huge strides in bringing disparate voices together in combating extremism and sectarianism over the last few years – including sensible Salafi and Wahhabi scholars:
    “They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash’arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim.”

    http://ammanmessage.com/

    We do not need the US screwing it up any more than they already have. If they officially come in and support Sunni Orthodoxy – we will be labeled as stooges and immediately disregarded. The only thing the US should be doing is being worried about the safety of their own citizens.

    The head of the Salafist/Wahhabist religious university in Medina has called to elimination of non-believers worldwide.

    Give me a solid source (not some Zionist supplied one) for that – this is a very incendiary statement. We are quite aware of the problems in Salafi/Wahhabi methodology and we are also quite aware that many of them are not extremists.

    http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/08/19/Saudi-mufti-ISIS-is-enemy-No-1-of-Islam-.html

    In fact, find me a senior level Salafi/Wahhabi scholar that supports Daesh. I can’t find any except self-taught guys or preachers going around with the label ‘Shaykh’ – they are Salafi/Wahhabi leaning for sure, but it is irresponsible to say this is what Salafi/Wahhabi scholarship is supporting.

    A brother did a great service in scrutinizing the list of supposed scholars who support Daesh (it is laughable):

    http://www.bilalabdulkareem.com/scholars1/

    but still considers all Shiite clerics as heretics

    Catholics consider Protestants to be heretical – again, read the Amman Message – it is signed by senior Salafi scholars along with senior Shiah scholars.

    what must he think of Alawites?

    They (along with Druze) aren’t Muslim – this is according to normative Sunni Orthodox opinion as the leading Sufi-Scholar Shaykh Muhammad Yaquobi made clear; that we only differ with Salafi/Wahhabis in considering them apostates (since apostasy is an action that can only be committed by a person who is already a Muslim):
    “Although ‘Alawis are considered kufaar [disbelievers] in the Hanafi school, as a sect we accept their legal presence within the Muslim community. They are not to be executed as murtadiin [apostates], because they were not Muslims who rejected Islam. They were born within their sect!”

    http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/sheikh-muhammad-al-yaqoubi-interviewed-by-syria-comment/

    He is also wrote a scholarly refutation of Daesh and declared fighting them legal:
    “Providing authentic quotes that destroy the allegations of ISIS, Shaykh Al-Yaqoubi reaches the conclusion that this group does not represent Islam, its declaration of a caliphate is invalid, and fighting it is an obligation upon Muslims.”

    http://www.refutingisis.com/

    This is what I am saying, you don’t know how complicated this gets.

    I am sure they would welcome the elimination of the ideology and the return of a Sharif of Mecca.

    Yes, but on our terms. We don’t want non-Muslims running amok with more ‘White man’s burden’ dreams of fixing our problems. I am a solid Sunni Orthodox Muslim who follows the Hanafi school and belong to a Sufi Order (Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi) – I (and all traditional Sunni Muslims I know) do not want any more non-Muslim interference in an internal matter – have you even spoken to us before making these assumptions? Why do you have the impression that we are waiting for some non-Muslim knights to come sweeping us out of danger.

    Stop selling arms to these regimes, stop siding with anybody in (or help start up) our civil wars, stop destabilizing Muslim countries – that is what we want. Basically, listen to Dr. Ron Paul:
    “Radical Islamic terrorism is for the most part a reaction to foreign interventionism. It will never be defeated until this simple truth is understood.”

    http://www.unz.com/rpaul/trumps-foreign-policy-an-unwise-inconsistency/

    We cannot defeat the ideology with all the chaos going around – there is too much noise. Stop adding to the destabilization.

    Peace.

    Note: A word to the wise; it isn’t good to complain about Zionist influence and then get your info from their sources like jihadwatch:

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/robert-spencer-david-horowitz-cash-in-on-hate/

    Read More
    • Replies: @krollchem
    You are correct about the cycle of violence, or what in science is called a negative feedback loop.

    An additional problem in the world (there is no planet B) relates to greed. The leaders of powerful countries have chosen to corrupt smaller or less powerful ones as it is generally easier that destroying them. The method generally used has been referred to as the "Angola Variant" whereby the greedy local leaders are bought out with enough money for them to live richly and to pay for a local army (supplied by the merchants of death) that suppresses opposition of the people so that the external power can extract the natural resources wealth and take most of the profits. It works every time.

    Adding to the Middle East troubles was Western spies such as Gertrude Bell who created additional conflict by lumping conflicting groups together within an artificial map and their masters installing dictators and applying the Angola Variant principles: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/17/gertrude-of-arabia-the-woman-who-invented-iraq.html

    In most cases the British ( particularly Churchill) and French leaders ordered the initial shock and awe by aerial bombardment of tribes either as an example or to suppress opposition to the selected leader until said leader could build a local army to finish the job. Thus we have the mess the Muslims and other cultural and belief systems are now caught up in. The wheel turns and the age old question remains how do you stop the wheel or break it (to borrow a phrase from the Game of Thrones).

    Currently, the Masters of the Universe and their chosen dictatorships cannot be defeated without a revolution. Ultimately, the destruction of the carrying capacity of the world via greed will setup conditions for what the ancient Greek historian Polybius called anacyclosis or the concentration and diffusion of power. It can either be via catabolic collapse, as the links I provided describe, or something much worse, a world on fire ruled by Warbands as described by the Historian Toynbee.

    As you were kind enough to describe your background I will do the same. When I was young I attended the Seventh Day Adventist church but left organized religion behind and chose the natural sciences as a substitute. Yes, I was forced to serve in the military, but as a conscious objector medic during the Vietnam war.

    What remains of my religious upbringing is mainly from Genesis: do not eat meat, do not kill and treat others as you wish to be treated (not unlike some Zen Buddhist monks). I have never on purpose killed any animal and live a vegan lifestyle. I would be considered a non-believer by Christians, Jews and Muslims alike.

    Unlike most all Americans, I follow the US Constitution and do not wrap myself in the flag and/or live a consumptive and violent lifestyle. In short, I do not fit in the culture I exist in or any other, which works for me.

    In all of my many science disciplines the highest form of consciousness is wonder at the world not unlike the view strived for in the creation of the Alhambra in Spain. I do appreciate it that you strive to practice an inner form of Islam and will review the links you have provided.

    Peace.
  109. Silverado says:

    So they’ll attack if we do what Trump has started according to this author. And if we don’t do that they’re likely to attack because of otherwise unfettered entry into this country?? Tell you what, let’s try it Trump’s way and see what happens. After all he did win the election and with help from this one issue.

    Read More
  110. @krollchem
    “Muslims I have talked to don’t necessarily see this change in policy as ‘oppressive’ – inconvenient, to be sure, but hardly ‘oppressive’”

    Agreed. However, I object to the Jewish exemption to the Executive Order, which makes the order potentially illegal , except half the US supreme court in Jewish (a Zionist Jews have also been recently shown to be a terrorist in Canada)

    Jewish governance predominates in the US with almost all US political leaders paying homage to Israel on paid visits as soon as they get elected. In addition, almost all MP in the UK must join the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI):
    "Taking Down" British Officials-Israel conspires against the Mother of Parliaments
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/taking-down-british-officials/

    See also comment 28 by Joe Franklin for a litany of issues with Zionism.

    All this conflict between the Abraham sourced religions leads me to pantheism with a twist of Druid (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/) and Daoism Satori (Watts and Suzuki).

    except half the US supreme court in Jewish

    That’s four-and-a-half. Which one is the Mischling?

    Or perhaps all of them are. The math works that way, too.

    Read More
  111. Krollchem says:

    Perhaps they all are either Jewish or crypto-Jewish.

    Currently there are eight Supreme Court Justices, of which four are Jewish and four are Catholic.

    Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, attends St. John’s Episcopal Church. https://thewayofimprovement.com/2017/02/01/where-does-judge-neil-gorsuch-go-to-church/

    Read More
  112. krollchem says:
    @Talha
    Hey KC,

    You seem to think it is a great idea for Trump to take on our Salafi/Wahhabi extremists. I completely disagree. Involving the US in the Middle East is a major cause of this nonsense spreading. The more the US bombs, the more youth are going to get radicalized. It is time to de-escalate now - immediately. I thought Trump was a better candidate specifically because I was hoping for a quick draw down and not business as usual.

    If 'Trump is attempting a Taft Republican strategy of nationalism' then he needs to stay out of other people's civil wars - period. That is the Taft way - ask Dr. Ron Paul - he knows better than anyone.

    The Muslim community has made huge strides in bringing disparate voices together in combating extremism and sectarianism over the last few years - including sensible Salafi and Wahhabi scholars:
    "They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash’arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim."
    http://ammanmessage.com/

    We do not need the US screwing it up any more than they already have. If they officially come in and support Sunni Orthodoxy - we will be labeled as stooges and immediately disregarded. The only thing the US should be doing is being worried about the safety of their own citizens.

    The head of the Salafist/Wahhabist religious university in Medina has called to elimination of non-believers worldwide.
     
    Give me a solid source (not some Zionist supplied one) for that - this is a very incendiary statement. We are quite aware of the problems in Salafi/Wahhabi methodology and we are also quite aware that many of them are not extremists.
    http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/08/19/Saudi-mufti-ISIS-is-enemy-No-1-of-Islam-.html

    In fact, find me a senior level Salafi/Wahhabi scholar that supports Daesh. I can't find any except self-taught guys or preachers going around with the label 'Shaykh' - they are Salafi/Wahhabi leaning for sure, but it is irresponsible to say this is what Salafi/Wahhabi scholarship is supporting.

    A brother did a great service in scrutinizing the list of supposed scholars who support Daesh (it is laughable):
    http://www.bilalabdulkareem.com/scholars1/

    but still considers all Shiite clerics as heretics
     
    Catholics consider Protestants to be heretical - again, read the Amman Message - it is signed by senior Salafi scholars along with senior Shiah scholars.

    what must he think of Alawites?
     
    They (along with Druze) aren't Muslim - this is according to normative Sunni Orthodox opinion as the leading Sufi-Scholar Shaykh Muhammad Yaquobi made clear; that we only differ with Salafi/Wahhabis in considering them apostates (since apostasy is an action that can only be committed by a person who is already a Muslim):
    "Although ‘Alawis are considered kufaar [disbelievers] in the Hanafi school, as a sect we accept their legal presence within the Muslim community. They are not to be executed as murtadiin [apostates], because they were not Muslims who rejected Islam. They were born within their sect!"
    http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/sheikh-muhammad-al-yaqoubi-interviewed-by-syria-comment/

    He is also wrote a scholarly refutation of Daesh and declared fighting them legal:
    "Providing authentic quotes that destroy the allegations of ISIS, Shaykh Al-Yaqoubi reaches the conclusion that this group does not represent Islam, its declaration of a caliphate is invalid, and fighting it is an obligation upon Muslims."
    http://www.refutingisis.com/

    This is what I am saying, you don't know how complicated this gets.

    I am sure they would welcome the elimination of the ideology and the return of a Sharif of Mecca.
     
    Yes, but on our terms. We don't want non-Muslims running amok with more 'White man's burden' dreams of fixing our problems. I am a solid Sunni Orthodox Muslim who follows the Hanafi school and belong to a Sufi Order (Naqshbandi-Mujaddidi) - I (and all traditional Sunni Muslims I know) do not want any more non-Muslim interference in an internal matter - have you even spoken to us before making these assumptions? Why do you have the impression that we are waiting for some non-Muslim knights to come sweeping us out of danger.

    Stop selling arms to these regimes, stop siding with anybody in (or help start up) our civil wars, stop destabilizing Muslim countries - that is what we want. Basically, listen to Dr. Ron Paul:
    "Radical Islamic terrorism is for the most part a reaction to foreign interventionism. It will never be defeated until this simple truth is understood."
    http://www.unz.com/rpaul/trumps-foreign-policy-an-unwise-inconsistency/

    We cannot defeat the ideology with all the chaos going around - there is too much noise. Stop adding to the destabilization.

    Peace.

    Note: A word to the wise; it isn't good to complain about Zionist influence and then get your info from their sources like jihadwatch:
    http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/robert-spencer-david-horowitz-cash-in-on-hate/

    You are correct about the cycle of violence, or what in science is called a negative feedback loop.

    An additional problem in the world (there is no planet B) relates to greed. The leaders of powerful countries have chosen to corrupt smaller or less powerful ones as it is generally easier that destroying them. The method generally used has been referred to as the “Angola Variant” whereby the greedy local leaders are bought out with enough money for them to live richly and to pay for a local army (supplied by the merchants of death) that suppresses opposition of the people so that the external power can extract the natural resources wealth and take most of the profits. It works every time.

    Adding to the Middle East troubles was Western spies such as Gertrude Bell who created additional conflict by lumping conflicting groups together within an artificial map and their masters installing dictators and applying the Angola Variant principles: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/17/gertrude-of-arabia-the-woman-who-invented-iraq.html

    In most cases the British ( particularly Churchill) and French leaders ordered the initial shock and awe by aerial bombardment of tribes either as an example or to suppress opposition to the selected leader until said leader could build a local army to finish the job. Thus we have the mess the Muslims and other cultural and belief systems are now caught up in. The wheel turns and the age old question remains how do you stop the wheel or break it (to borrow a phrase from the Game of Thrones).

    Currently, the Masters of the Universe and their chosen dictatorships cannot be defeated without a revolution. Ultimately, the destruction of the carrying capacity of the world via greed will setup conditions for what the ancient Greek historian Polybius called anacyclosis or the concentration and diffusion of power. It can either be via catabolic collapse, as the links I provided describe, or something much worse, a world on fire ruled by Warbands as described by the Historian Toynbee.

    As you were kind enough to describe your background I will do the same. When I was young I attended the Seventh Day Adventist church but left organized religion behind and chose the natural sciences as a substitute. Yes, I was forced to serve in the military, but as a conscious objector medic during the Vietnam war.

    What remains of my religious upbringing is mainly from Genesis: do not eat meat, do not kill and treat others as you wish to be treated (not unlike some Zen Buddhist monks). I have never on purpose killed any animal and live a vegan lifestyle. I would be considered a non-believer by Christians, Jews and Muslims alike.

    Unlike most all Americans, I follow the US Constitution and do not wrap myself in the flag and/or live a consumptive and violent lifestyle. In short, I do not fit in the culture I exist in or any other, which works for me.

    In all of my many science disciplines the highest form of consciousness is wonder at the world not unlike the view strived for in the creation of the Alhambra in Spain. I do appreciate it that you strive to practice an inner form of Islam and will review the links you have provided.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey KC,

    No problem. I think both you and I want similar results; we do not want the safety of US citizens to be imperiled nor do we want pernicious ideologies causing chaos in the Muslim world.

    I myself was more Salafi/Wahhabi leaning when I was younger and involved with political activism (this was Bush I and Clinton years, Iraq sanctions, etc.) - it was when I came across good people that were able to teach me a more sound approach to my religion that I started shifting gears. I definitely would not have listened to them if I had an inkling they were in support of American intervention in the Muslim world.

    Much respect for you going the conscientious objector route that you did; we may not have the same beliefs, but I admire moral courage when I see it.

    Peace.
    , @jacques sheete

    I follow the US Constitution...
     
    Why would anyone with as much insight as you seem to have follow the US Constitution?

    The anti-federalists would probably agree with most of what you wrote except for that and they were more correct than not as the subsequent history of the state has amply demonstrated.
  113. Talha says:
    @krollchem
    You are correct about the cycle of violence, or what in science is called a negative feedback loop.

    An additional problem in the world (there is no planet B) relates to greed. The leaders of powerful countries have chosen to corrupt smaller or less powerful ones as it is generally easier that destroying them. The method generally used has been referred to as the "Angola Variant" whereby the greedy local leaders are bought out with enough money for them to live richly and to pay for a local army (supplied by the merchants of death) that suppresses opposition of the people so that the external power can extract the natural resources wealth and take most of the profits. It works every time.

    Adding to the Middle East troubles was Western spies such as Gertrude Bell who created additional conflict by lumping conflicting groups together within an artificial map and their masters installing dictators and applying the Angola Variant principles: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/17/gertrude-of-arabia-the-woman-who-invented-iraq.html

    In most cases the British ( particularly Churchill) and French leaders ordered the initial shock and awe by aerial bombardment of tribes either as an example or to suppress opposition to the selected leader until said leader could build a local army to finish the job. Thus we have the mess the Muslims and other cultural and belief systems are now caught up in. The wheel turns and the age old question remains how do you stop the wheel or break it (to borrow a phrase from the Game of Thrones).

    Currently, the Masters of the Universe and their chosen dictatorships cannot be defeated without a revolution. Ultimately, the destruction of the carrying capacity of the world via greed will setup conditions for what the ancient Greek historian Polybius called anacyclosis or the concentration and diffusion of power. It can either be via catabolic collapse, as the links I provided describe, or something much worse, a world on fire ruled by Warbands as described by the Historian Toynbee.

    As you were kind enough to describe your background I will do the same. When I was young I attended the Seventh Day Adventist church but left organized religion behind and chose the natural sciences as a substitute. Yes, I was forced to serve in the military, but as a conscious objector medic during the Vietnam war.

    What remains of my religious upbringing is mainly from Genesis: do not eat meat, do not kill and treat others as you wish to be treated (not unlike some Zen Buddhist monks). I have never on purpose killed any animal and live a vegan lifestyle. I would be considered a non-believer by Christians, Jews and Muslims alike.

    Unlike most all Americans, I follow the US Constitution and do not wrap myself in the flag and/or live a consumptive and violent lifestyle. In short, I do not fit in the culture I exist in or any other, which works for me.

    In all of my many science disciplines the highest form of consciousness is wonder at the world not unlike the view strived for in the creation of the Alhambra in Spain. I do appreciate it that you strive to practice an inner form of Islam and will review the links you have provided.

    Peace.

    Hey KC,

    No problem. I think both you and I want similar results; we do not want the safety of US citizens to be imperiled nor do we want pernicious ideologies causing chaos in the Muslim world.

    I myself was more Salafi/Wahhabi leaning when I was younger and involved with political activism (this was Bush I and Clinton years, Iraq sanctions, etc.) – it was when I came across good people that were able to teach me a more sound approach to my religion that I started shifting gears. I definitely would not have listened to them if I had an inkling they were in support of American intervention in the Muslim world.

    Much respect for you going the conscientious objector route that you did; we may not have the same beliefs, but I admire moral courage when I see it.

    Peace.

    Read More
  114. @krollchem
    You are correct about the cycle of violence, or what in science is called a negative feedback loop.

    An additional problem in the world (there is no planet B) relates to greed. The leaders of powerful countries have chosen to corrupt smaller or less powerful ones as it is generally easier that destroying them. The method generally used has been referred to as the "Angola Variant" whereby the greedy local leaders are bought out with enough money for them to live richly and to pay for a local army (supplied by the merchants of death) that suppresses opposition of the people so that the external power can extract the natural resources wealth and take most of the profits. It works every time.

    Adding to the Middle East troubles was Western spies such as Gertrude Bell who created additional conflict by lumping conflicting groups together within an artificial map and their masters installing dictators and applying the Angola Variant principles: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/17/gertrude-of-arabia-the-woman-who-invented-iraq.html

    In most cases the British ( particularly Churchill) and French leaders ordered the initial shock and awe by aerial bombardment of tribes either as an example or to suppress opposition to the selected leader until said leader could build a local army to finish the job. Thus we have the mess the Muslims and other cultural and belief systems are now caught up in. The wheel turns and the age old question remains how do you stop the wheel or break it (to borrow a phrase from the Game of Thrones).

    Currently, the Masters of the Universe and their chosen dictatorships cannot be defeated without a revolution. Ultimately, the destruction of the carrying capacity of the world via greed will setup conditions for what the ancient Greek historian Polybius called anacyclosis or the concentration and diffusion of power. It can either be via catabolic collapse, as the links I provided describe, or something much worse, a world on fire ruled by Warbands as described by the Historian Toynbee.

    As you were kind enough to describe your background I will do the same. When I was young I attended the Seventh Day Adventist church but left organized religion behind and chose the natural sciences as a substitute. Yes, I was forced to serve in the military, but as a conscious objector medic during the Vietnam war.

    What remains of my religious upbringing is mainly from Genesis: do not eat meat, do not kill and treat others as you wish to be treated (not unlike some Zen Buddhist monks). I have never on purpose killed any animal and live a vegan lifestyle. I would be considered a non-believer by Christians, Jews and Muslims alike.

    Unlike most all Americans, I follow the US Constitution and do not wrap myself in the flag and/or live a consumptive and violent lifestyle. In short, I do not fit in the culture I exist in or any other, which works for me.

    In all of my many science disciplines the highest form of consciousness is wonder at the world not unlike the view strived for in the creation of the Alhambra in Spain. I do appreciate it that you strive to practice an inner form of Islam and will review the links you have provided.

    Peace.

    I follow the US Constitution…

    Why would anyone with as much insight as you seem to have follow the US Constitution?

    The anti-federalists would probably agree with most of what you wrote except for that and they were more correct than not as the subsequent history of the state has amply demonstrated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @krollchem
    Perhaps part of the problem is that no politician in the US follows the US Constitution. Second it does have many fatal flaws that have led us to this point (Spooner et al). Third it is tied to the backward religious beliefs of the time. James Madison attempted to base the republic on a nation of laws not men in recognition of the evil in men's hearts - but in the end failed. see https://mises.org/blog/constitution-failed and http://jim.com/treason.htm

    Thanks for reminding me of my ignorance. Guilty as charged.

  115. krollchem says:
    @jacques sheete

    I follow the US Constitution...
     
    Why would anyone with as much insight as you seem to have follow the US Constitution?

    The anti-federalists would probably agree with most of what you wrote except for that and they were more correct than not as the subsequent history of the state has amply demonstrated.

    Perhaps part of the problem is that no politician in the US follows the US Constitution. Second it does have many fatal flaws that have led us to this point (Spooner et al). Third it is tied to the backward religious beliefs of the time. James Madison attempted to base the republic on a nation of laws not men in recognition of the evil in men’s hearts – but in the end failed. see https://mises.org/blog/constitution-failed and http://jim.com/treason.htm

    Thanks for reminding me of my ignorance. Guilty as charged.

    Read More
  116. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    It is not a problem. It is faith.
     
    At the bedrock - yes. There is also an issue of coherence - but this is skirting into theological debate area, so I'm putting on the brakes. My questions were rhetorical.

    but your shepherds haven’t exactly been keeping all of your sheep rounded up these days
     
    Nope - big problem, this. Also the black sheep.

    How many years have the Wahhabis been at war with everyone else?
     
    Well, they kind of died down for decades (after the Ottomans [well they had help from the Egyptians] beat them down) and were basically relegated to the Najd area.

    Dear British,

    What the **** were you thinking?


    Dear US arms manufacturers,

    What the **** are you thinking?

    Signed - most Muslims.

    Actually, this is not a new phenomenon. This is unfortunately a historic repetitive trend within our religion. It crops its head every few centuries - all part of the test and we were warned about it. This is one of my teachers of the hadith sciences talking about it:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52lct3XWGTs

    My advice, steer clear - let us handle it.

    Extremism is an unfortunate side-effect of any religion/philosophy that takes itself seriously. Again, same reason why the Christians of the past slaughtered each other in Europe over heresies, versus today - they took religion very, very seriously; today it's a hobby. Of course - religion-as-hobby has its own issues (like potential civilizational collapse), but that is a subject for another time.

    Peace.

    Dear British,

    What the **** were you thinking?

    Dear US arms manufacturers,

    What the **** are you thinking?

    Signed – most Muslims.

    You answered your own question here: they/we were thinking of geopolitical rather than moral issues. Like almost every other time someone does this, it came around to bite us eventually.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr