May 26, 2013

"This is a fight between extremism and moderate Islam."

"It is easy to say that something is against Islam and get people upset, but there is no article in this law against Islam, and those who say so either have not read it or are just making propaganda."

259 comments:

1 – 200 of 259   Newer›   Newest»
Bender said...

See all the trouble that damned George Bush has caused?

rhhardin said...

A tradition is both imposed and chosen.

It's at the chosen point of discussion now.

Gahrie said...

There is no such thing as moderate Islam.

Whenever anyone attempts to moderate islam, they are killed. The religion explicitly calls for it.

Islam will not accomodate with Western civilization, or co-exist with it, the religion explicitly forbids this, and demands that Islam conqueror the world, by any means neccessary.

Bob Ellison said...

The fight between extremist and moderate libertarianism is bubbling up, too.

"Extremism" is an interesting word. Individuals can have quite different ideas of what it means. Most Americans don't examine linguistics or history of language and probably just have a knee-jerk reaction to it.

LarsPorsena said...

Moderates don't kill.
That's why they are moderate. Extremists do.
Extremists win.

rhhardin said...

You'd think Islam would have a protection money tradition like other organized crime arrangements.

phx said...

I'm reading The Bookseller of Kabul, by Asne Seierstad. What I get from it is that not only do the moderates have to overcome the extremists, they have to overcome themselves as well. The Bookseller is fairly moderate politically and religiously, but he's still ruthless with his family relations. The license for that ruthlessness comes from Afghani culture, which is informed by Islam.

gspencer said...

No even a semblance of reasonable behavior can ever be expected of Muslims until Islam is known as Was-lam.

The Drill SGT said...

Short version:

The Afghan Women are truly screwed.

Gahrie said...

You'd think Islam would have a protection money tradition like other organized crime arrangements

They do. All Dhimmis (non-Muslims) have to pay a jizya. Jizya is: In Arabic it means:What is taken from the Dhimmis, which is the amount of money agreed upon in the contract that gives the non-Muslim the Dhimmai status; and it's derived from the act of the verb "reward"; as if it (Jizya) is a requital for not being killed.

Lem said...

In particular, they oppose raising the minimum marriage age for girls from 9 to 16, sending men to jail for beating their wives...

The problem is that the Lemons of Afghanistan don't get to live to the ripe old age of 84.

Just saying.

Gahrie said...

There are pictures floating around the internet of what life was like in Afghanistan in the 1950's and 1960's when the secularists were in charge of Afghanistan. Men and women dressed like westerners, cars were prevelant in the cities and the roads were paved.

Lem said...

Khawasi defended the practice that allows elders to draw up marriage contracts for young girls, saying they “know what is best”.

One man's extremist is another man's community organizer.

Lem said...

There are pictures floating around the internet of what life was like in Afghanistan in the 1950's and 1960's when the secularists were in charge of Afghanistan.

I've heard the same is true of Iran.

It seems that 'traditions and costumes' don't take long to take root.

Paul said...

Islam, by definition, IS extremist.

Their very Koran promotes slavery and killing of non-believers.

And that is a fact. Can't be deigned.

So there is no 'moderate' Islam.

edutcher said...

Gahrie is partially right about moderate Islam.

It's no fight until the moderates actually take a stand.

Right now, they're afraid to do that.

PS Perhaps they should call themselves secularists because Lars has a point about who wins.

The secularists want to drag Islam kicking and screaming into a better world. to do that, they'll have to get a little "extreme" themselves.

Lyle said...

There's going to be more war in the future for sure.

phx said...

Islam, by definition, IS extremist. Their very Koran promotes slavery and killing of non-believers.

Not necessarily true. Even if parts of the self-definition of Islam in the Koran are extremist, not all Moslems are fundamentalists. Not all people who self-identify as Jews are implementing the rules of Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

Inga said...

Why would we Westerners think we could change their culture? The Afghan women are screwed and it's not our place to protect them forever.

Lem said...

Teach the girls to read and watch that country change.

tiger said...

It's all about the power and what the men can do to justify their control of and abuse of it.

Muslims just don't have the guts to admit it.

Paco Wové said...

"Teach the girls to read and watch that country change"

Back in the 60's Afghan women, at least some of them, went to college, in Afghanistan. That all appears to have regressed greatly in 50 years.

"Teaching them to read" is a lot more difficult when somebody is willing and able to kill the teachers and the students.

Phil 3:14 said...

She posts regularly on Facebook and Twitter and speaks perfect English. In February, she appeared on “The Daily Show” during a U.S. tour to promote her autobiography, a story of her climb from rural poverty to political prominence.

The Daily Show! I thought that was a comedy show. This doesn't sound like a very humorous subject.

Gahrie said...

Not all people who self-identify as Jews are implementing the rules of Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

There is a difference. The Jews have roughly organized themselves into three versions of Judaism: Reform, Conservative and Orthodox. The three branches of judaism tolerate and accomodate each other.

In Islam, there can be no branch besides orthodox, it is specifically forbidden. The very suggestion that Islam can, or neeeds to be, moderated is heresy punishable by death.

jr565 said...

They, the fundies, object to raising the marital age from 9 to 16. Ah, so in the interest of fairness for our own marriage debate, what if we lower the age of marriage from whatever it is on a state by state level to 9? To accomodate those who wish to marry 9 year olds? Marriage is a fundamental right, and to deny people the right to marry those they love would be an abomination.
Because to deny people the ability to marry their 9 year old spouse is a denial of fundamental rights. Correct? And clearly there are people out there who say marriage between 9 year olds and adults is ok and even preferred. So who are we to restrict that?

The fundies are the ones for marriage equality here, and its the reformers who are trying to impose their morality on people who just want to marry the people they love (even if they are 9 years old).

This (raising the age of marriage) would be like gays getting the right to marry and then having a state take away those rights based on BIGOTRY.

In this debate,clearly the fundies are right and the reformers are wrong. Beacause the reformers are trying to define marriage in a way that hurts the fundies. And we can't have society define marriage in ways that restricts it.
I'm surprised the advocates of gay marriage are not siding with the extremists on this one.

jacksonjay said...


Radical Islam is not the enemy. The GWOT is over! We (Saint Barry) has destroyed Al-Qaeda. Over a thousand years of Muslim aggression has been conquered! A few criminal acts here and there will be dealt with accordingly.

The Tea Party and James Rosen are the enemy! Now we must destroy them!

mariner said...

rhhardin,
You'd think Islam would have a protection money tradition like other organized crime arrangements.

Jizya as evidence of submission to Islam sounds kinda like Federal Income Tax as submission to the all Federal Government, doesn't it?

And speaking of organized crime ...

Michael K said...

"Afghan women need a permanent law spelling out their rights and banning practices that harm them. "

What they need are guns and the knowledge of how to use them.

The pictures from Afghanistan in the 50s were from Kabul. The old king was known as "The Mayor of Kabul." Modern society never went beyond city limits.

That was largely true of Iran, as well. It's also true of Turkey and that will be their future.

mariner said...

Lem,
"Teaching them to read" is a lot more difficult when somebody is willing and able to kill the teachers and the students.
What they're taught to read makes a difference, too.

Look at America.

Michael K said...

"
The Tea Party and James Rosen are the enemy! Now we must destroy them!"

In Sweden, police are arrest.ng citizens who try to stop the rioters and leave the rioters to burn cars.

Similar to British police arresting facebook posters.

edutcher said...

Inga said...

Why would we Westerners think we could change their culture? The Afghan women are screwed and it's not our place to protect them forever.

As always, the She Devil of the SS shoots off her mouth before checking to see if her powder's dry.

Much of the Moslem world was fairly secular 50 years ago.

Women wore modern dress and everything.

They were even proud of it.

And, yes, we did protect them.

Until Choom showed up and made A-stan "his" war.

Inga said...

Edbutcher perhaps you should re read this from Michael K.

Michael K said...

"The pictures from Afghanistan in the 50s were from Kabul. The old king was known as "The Mayor of Kabul." Modern society never went beyond city limits.

That was largely true of Iran, as well. It's also true of Turkey and that will be their future."

5/26/13, 10:04 AM
------------------------

Paco Wové said...

I regret my previous comment contained a terminological inexactitude such that it implied there are no female students at old Kabul U. That there are indeed such students is proven by this blog post, wherein a female student was beaten up by a University dean. (In the dean's defense, apparently administrators get to beat up male students too.)

chrisnavin.com said...

Maybe there's a job for Chelsea Clinton in here somewhere, or a fawning fashion shoot with the Taliban for a Vogue cover.

Saint Croix said...

There is no such thing as moderate Islam.

Sorry, this is ignorant. I went to school with guys who were Islamic. They were very nice, very spiritual, very sweet guys. One of them actually lost his family in Afghanistan. Sweetest guy you ever saw.

Google Sufi.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

"A proposed law to protect Afghan women and girls from abuses such as child marriage, bride barter and spousal abuse has created a furor in the past week, exposing a generational and religious struggle that persists in this traditional Muslim society despite a decade of Western-backed democracy and a constitution that enshrines women’s rights.

The drama erupted when a female legislator brought the bill before parliament May 16 and a group of male lawmakers vehemently objected, saying it was contrary to Islam and Afghan culture."

Darrell said...

The extremists are following the letter of the law as laid out in the Qu'ran. Never forget that. "Moderates" believe that times have changed and some things should not be followed as written. Moderates become extremists at the speed of thought.

Saint Croix said...

Islam will not accomodate with Western civilization, or co-exist with it, the religion explicitly forbids this, and demands that Islam conqueror the world, by any means necessary.

That's why the Wahhabis are bad, they are very strict textualists. And the problem with that is the Koran has some very ugly passages.

The Sufis are the spiritual people of Islam. (Being Sufi cuts across Shiite or Sunni). They see large parts of the Koran as symbolic, or they put it in context of it being written in a time of war.

They do not bow down to Mecca five times a day, for instance.

You have zero chance to abolish a religion--particularly from the outside--and it's idiotic to talk that way. It's certainly not how you go about converting people.

We should seek ways to cut off Wahhabi funding--all of which comes from Saudi Arabia. They are funding schools around the world.

But Islam did not used to be this way. In the dark ages, for instance, it was Christianity that was burning books while Islam would save them.

G Joubert said...

Yeah, send in Christian missionaries. We can do an over/under thing on their life expectancies. Be kinda like Name That Tune. Sell it as a reality show.

edutcher said...

Inga said...

Edbutcher perhaps you should re read this from Michael K.

The pictures from Afghanistan in the 50s were from Kabul. The old king was known as "The Mayor of Kabul." Modern society never went beyond city limits.

That was largely true of Iran, as well. It's also true of Turkey and that will be their future.


But a lot of countries - Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon - were secular at base.

I'd disagree about Turkey, certainly.

Point is, her Messiah has restarted the Lefty chorus of "It's impossssible", and the She Wolf of the SS can't wait to beat the drum.

It can be done, but it does take time and we need to get rid of the crypto-Commies who always want to sabotage it.

Paco Wové said...

"Teach the girls to read"

Sorry for beating on your poor dead horse some more, Lem, but "teaching them to read" is what we've been trying to do, intensively, for the past 10 years... and less intensively for the past 50.

It's not working; the rot is too deep. Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier region is one of the world's skankiest armpits, and a thin veneer of modernization isn't going to change that.

Anglelyne said...

edutcher: As always, the She Devil of the SS shoots off her mouth before checking to see if her powder's dry.

Inga's right about this. It's probably a bad sign when you're playing the fool to Inga's sensible and true comment.

Much of the Moslem world was fairly secular 50 years ago.

Women wore modern dress and everything.


A transient urban phenomenon. A veneer. That the secularism didn't last ought to clue you in to its real nature.

And, yes, we did protect them.

Until Choom showed up and made A-stan "his" war.


Yeah, that nation-building was going so well until O took over.

The West can't fix the world. I'd prefer it if we had leaders who were actually interested in defending our cultures on our own soil, rather than running around the world trying to impose these Western values that they no longer have any respect for on their own turf, and in fact are undermining as fast as they can.

Lyle said...

Inga,

It's not about changing their culture, it's about protecting our own.

As long as their culture exists, ours really isn't that safe.

Show some respect for your cooter Inga.



jr565 said...

There is a moderate Islam, and certainly in this country it's greater in numbers than radical Islam. And we should push for more moderate Islam wherever we can.

But moderate Islam is actually the radical islam and Radical Islam is actually the true face of Islam.

Anytime Islam defenders describe Islam as a religion of peace they are taking things out of context. Islam is in fact a religion that evolved over the course of Mohammad's life. When he started and was trying to get followers he stressed peace. but those he was trying to convert would have none of it.

Then he was kicked out of Medina and took up with a band of brigands and basically became a pirate/maurauder. killing and robbing his way to power.
Along the way he was given his revelations, which were always self serving to him and his current situation. So, as he became a warlord and made war with the various Jewish tribes his earlier messages of peace were ABROGATED and the new revelation took its place.
And sadly, all the peaceful stuff was said before he became all powerful and his army grew.

So, when modern day defenders of Islam cite a verse about how Islam is peace, they are in fact taking a statement out of context, beacause it was abrogated by another statement that advocates killing the Jews wherever you find them.

So, who's the extremist and who's the radical? The ones who believe in the abrogated revelations or the ones who believe in the revelations that abrogate the peaceful ones?
Osama bin Laden is actually the true face of Islam. The reformers are actually the extremists.

Saint Croix said...

See How The Veil Conquered Cairo University.

Click on the photographs. 50 years ago, none of them were wearing veils. Now all of them are.

This is all due to Saudi oil money and Wahhabi indoctrination in schools.

edutcher said...

Anglelyne said...

As always, the She Devil of the SS shoots off her mouth before checking to see if her powder's dry.

Inga's right about this. It's probably a bad sign when you're playing the fool to Inga's sensible and true comment.


That'll be the day.

The She Devil - and Angelyne - are just taking up Choom's talking points about turning tail and running.

Surprise!

Much of the Moslem world was fairly secular 50 years ago.

Women wore modern dress and everything.


A transient urban phenomenon. A veneer. That the secularism didn't last ought to clue you in to its real nature.


When people are assassinated in the name of the burkha, it's hardly a mark they want to put it on.

And, yes, we did protect them.

Until Choom showed up and made A-stan "his" war.


Yeah, that nation-building was going so well until O took over.


Actually it was. We lost far more men in the last 4 years than we did in the 8 before.

But this is is crowd that expects Marines to hold an umbrella because Little Zero is such a wussy.

Chip Ahoy said...

The truly odd thing about the guy with red hands and two knives speaking directly into the camera with his British accent was the incoherency of him saying he doesn't apologize for women having to see such things because in his country women must see such things in the streets all the time so now it must be that British women must see such things also.

The women of his country? He was speaking directly to one and she is British. He imagines himself citizen to another country entirely. He might have even been there once. Who knows?

Saint Croix said...

The very suggestion that Islam can, or neeeds to be, moderated is heresy punishable by death.

Christians used to punish blasphemy by death, too.

Christianity went through a Reformation. Islam severely needs one today.

Paco Wové said...

"in his country women must see such things"

Good catch, Chip. What the hell? "His country" could only be England -- so if they're seeing such things it's because HE'S THE ONE DOING THEM -- or Nigeria, where again, if they're seeing such things IT'S BECAUSE HIS FRIENDS IN BOKO HARAM ARE DOING THEM.

Utter incoherence.

Anglelyne said...

edutcher: The She Devil - and Angelyne - are just taking up Choom's talking points about turning tail and running.

Lol. Angelyne, notorious Dem groupie. Isn't it awfully early on a Sunday morning for you to be that toasted already?

Actually it was. We lost far more men in the last 4 years than we did in the 8 before.

Yeah, Afghanistan was this close to being turned into a modern secular nation. The End of History was nigh, until the Dems came into office.

When your "evidence" for the wisdom of your foreign policy is nothing more than the other guy's greater incompetence...

Achilles said...

Inga said...
Why would we Westerners think we could change their culture? The Afghan women are screwed and it's not our place to protect them forever.

5/26/13, 9:49 AM

Coward.

Is the anything you would fight for? I thought women's rights were important to you. Or is it only YOUR women's rights and not OTHER women's rights?

I was happy to go over there and fight on behalf of others freedom. Even for someone who doesn't think it was worth fighting for like you. We all volunteered you know. And there were some women that came out with us. If you thought we were tough on the scum over there you should talk to some of the women in the army that saw what was done to the women over there.

Saint Croix said...

The liberal feminists in Afghanistan are, clearly, the good guys. And the Islamic conservatives are the bad guys.

Many sport flowing beards and turbans, fought in the anti-Soviet jihad of the 1980s and see themselves as guardians of the nation’s religious and family values against a Western assault. Some are religious clerics who command wide public respect and influence.

These men object to key provisions in the proposed law that would give women and girls more rights and protection from family customs and practices considered abusive in other parts of the world. In particular, they oppose raising the minimum marriage age for girls from 9 to 16, sending men to jail for beating their wives, and allowing women and girls to seek sanctuary from abusive family situations in government and private shelters.


One of Muhammad's wives was Aisha. He married her when she was 6, and according to Wikipedia it was consummated when she was 9. So that's their thought process. If Muhammad did it, must be okay.

In our culture, of course, it's the liberal feminists who are the bad guys. We have large piles of dead babies that our media hides from our people. So as backwards as traditional Islam might seem to us, at least infanticide is not a part of that culture.

Afghanistan needs feminism. We have too much of it.

Anglelyne said...

eductcher: When people are assassinated in the name of the burkha, it's hardly a mark they want to put it on.

When people are assassinated in the name of the burkha, it's a sign that you're dealing with a deeply-entrenched whack-job primitive culture that is going to be far more refractory to change than messianic do-gooder Westerners like to think. And no, I don't like the idea of Western men giving up their lives, and Western nations bleeding themselves dry, in the futile attempt to fix other people's bullshit. All while more and more burkhas are showing up on the streets of my civilization (sponsored by the same messianic assholes "fixing" Afghanistan).

Paco Wové said...

Achilles-

is there evidence that all our lost blood and treasure will leave any lasting impact?

Bender said...

What books did "Christianity" burn in the "dark ages"? By the way, that time was long before the printing press and thus the only books that existed were those which the monestaries were preserving and copying. Moreover, at that time 98 percent of the population was illiterate.

As for the problem of Islam being too literalist and fundamental, just exactly how would they benefit from a "Reformation" when the Protestant Reformation was largely about adopting a more literalist and fundamental approach?

Anglelyne said...

Achilles:

Coward.

Is the anything you would fight for? I thought women's rights were important to you. Or is it only YOUR women's rights and not OTHER women's rights?

I was happy to go over there and fight on behalf of others freedom.


Your personal courage and conviction are not what's in contention. Is everybody who disagrees with you about the wisdom and feasibility of nation-building a coward? There are plenty of brave men out there whose courage and experience matches or exceeds your own whom you're calling "cowards" here, Achilles.

Achilles said...

Angelyne said

Actually it was. We lost far more men in the last 4 years than we did in the 8 before.

Yeah, Afghanistan was this close to being turned into a modern secular nation. The End of History was nigh, until the Dems came into office.

When your "evidence" for the wisdom of your foreign policy is nothing more than the other guy's greater incompetence...

5/26/13, 10:55 AM

Afghanistan had a secular history. There was a time when there were roads and women walked the streets and were taught to read. It could be that way again. First we would have to defeat our enemy.

I was there before Obama was president and there after he was president. It was different. Under Bush we were trying to destroy the Taliban. Under Obama we were trying to do something but it was not clear what. The ROE's changed. We weren't allowed to go places where we new they were. No more destroying compounds.

We watched a group of them wire a compound to explode. We asked permission to destroy the compound and were denied. We had to leave a giant poster for the unit rotating in with a giant X saying "Don't go here."

Obama made specific policy changes through the chain of command that I can detail. These changes made it harder to fight. We caught and released the same guy 3 times because the rules in place forced us to release him. The Taliban learned that getting captured meant a week or so in a cell with better food than they got at home and as long as they didn't say anything they got released. Is it any wonder we lost more people with him in charge?

edutcher said...

Anglelyne said...

When people are assassinated in the name of the burkha, it's hardly a mark they want to put it on.

When people are assassinated in the name of the burkha, it's a sign that you're dealing with a deeply-entrenched whack-job primitive culture that is going to be far more refractory to change than messianic do-gooder Westerners like to think.


In that case, you wouldn't have moved the coutry past the East Coast 400 years ago or fought the Klan.

Figures.

And no, I don't like the idea of Western men giving up their lives, and Western nations bleeding themselves dry, in the futile attempt to fix other people's bullshit.

So, you opposed WWII, also.

Or was it just until "we" were attacked in Barbarossa?

The little Commies never change their rap.

(and, yes, that was the rap in this country until 6/22/41)

Saint Croix said...

What books did "Christianity" burn in the "dark ages"? By the way, that time was long before the printing press and thus the only books that existed were those which the monestaries were preserving and copying. Moreover, at that time 98 percent of the population was illiterate.

As for the problem of Islam being too literalist and fundamental, just exactly how would they benefit from a "Reformation" when the Protestant Reformation was largely about adopting a more literalist and fundamental approach?


Bender, these are terrific questions and you are exposing my sloppiness. In my defense all I can say is I frickin' read it somewhere. Might not have been books, it might have been papers, scrolls. It was definitely some kind of knowledge that was lost due to Christian zealotry, which of course has been known to happen.

Probably should have said Enlightenment as opposed to Reformation, though. Very good catch. That was quite sloppy.

Michael K said...

". In the dark ages, for instance, it was Christianity that was burning books while Islam would save them."

And your evidence is ???

It was tough to burn books before the printing press. Not impossible but all those monks would really get pissed.

Paco Wové said...

"It could be that way again. First we would have to defeat our enemy."

I admire your optimism, thought I don't share it. As someone who has been there, what do you think that defeat would take? How should we be fighting (or perhaps "have fought", now that it looks like we've entered the "declare victory and run away" phase) to ensure something like a real victory?

jr565 said...

Sorry, to clarify on my earlier statement I should say:
Islam is in fact a religion that evolved over the course of Mohammad's life. When he started and was trying to get followers he stressed peace. but those he was trying to convert thought he was a crackpot and he didn't get many followers. (i didn't to suggest that MOhammad was offering peace and his neighbors rejected that peace. They just wanted nothing to do with his religion)

Achilles said...


Paco Wové said...
Achilles-

is there evidence that all our lost blood and treasure will leave any lasting impact?

5/26/13, 11:09 AM

That depends on what we are willing to do. If we decide to pull out and give up now it will all be a waste for certain.

If we stay and fight the way Obama has we will be embarrassed first and waste more blood and treasure.

the only option that would have a chance is if we decide to kill the Taliban, and I assure you we could. It would be pretty easy for us but it would require a change in strategy. We would have to secure freedom for the current generation and let them raise a generation accustomed to western civilization or something close to it. There would be a chance.

But if we wanted to leave eventually the next thing we would have to do is outlaw Islam and ban it for a generation. Afghanistan as a colony was secular and somewhat modern. But If the religion of Islam is the basis for society sharia law will eventually subjugate the female populace. Once you remove female influence completely from society it is a short road to barbarism and jihad again.

I am not endorsing nation building. Just saying what it would take to make it work.

Anglelyne said...

edutcher - Now you're just babbling.

"The Klan! Nazis! Barbarossa! Pearl Harbor!" Well, those incantations would certainly remove any reasonable person's reservations about the wisdom of our Afghanistan policy.

But thanks for the amusement of addressing me as if I were a liberal of some sort. This invoked much mirth chez Anglelyne.

Achilles said...

Anglelyne said...
Achilles:

Coward.

Is the anything you would fight for? I thought women's rights were important to you. Or is it only YOUR women's rights and not OTHER women's rights?

I was happy to go over there and fight on behalf of others freedom.

Your personal courage and conviction are not what's in contention. Is everybody who disagrees with you about the wisdom and feasibility of nation-building a coward? There are plenty of brave men out there whose courage and experience matches or exceeds your own whom you're calling "cowards" here, Achilles.

5/26/13, 11:20 AM

There is a difference though I agree it is a small distinction on this specific matter but it has wider permutations. Being willing to fight for something but deciding it is not worth it and applying the concept of opportunity cost to the endeavor is different from not being willing to fight at all. I trust my comrades to step up when necessary.

I do not trust Obama or his supporters to do so. I don't even trust them to support freedom in general as the latest IRS scandal and the administration's disgusting behavior in Benghazi leads me to believe they are amoral thugs and wannabe dictators. Anyone who supports Obama at this point is suspect in my opinion.

virgil xenophon said...

Another little joyful note: In Sweden the police are giving parking-tickets to the very burned-out cars they stood back and watched torched. Wonderful..

Anglelyne said...

Achilles: I do not trust Obama or his supporters to do so. I don't even trust them to support freedom in general as the latest IRS scandal and the administration's disgusting behavior in Benghazi leads me to believe they are amoral thugs and wannabe dictators.

On these points we are in complete agreement.

Saint Croix said...

Maybe I was thinking of the burning of the Library of Alexandria? Although apparently there's a huge debate about when the library was destroyed, and who was responsible.

Hagar said...

It was indeed Christians that burned the library at Alexandria (Egypt, not Virginia), and though consisting of scrolls and tablets of various types rather than books as such, the idea is the same.

This administration may do all it can to piss away what was gained in the Middle East, but the women there will still ask how the heck come that American women get to fly Apache gunships, while they can't even get a lousy driver's license.

And you like your beans cooked tenderer? Tough shit, Ahmed!

Bruce Hayden said...

Christianity went through a Reformation. Islam severely needs one today.

I have thought this for a long time. But, the question is what triggers such, and makes such effective in changing society and the religion.

One thought is that the Protestant Reformation was successful for socio/geo-political reasons. If the Spanish Armada had been successful (or QEI's older Catholic sister had an old enough heir at her death), then they could have imported their Inquisition into England, and stamped out the new form(s) of religion. Instead, the Protestants managed to mostly take over control of much of the world, instead of the Roman Catholics. And, that economic pressure is really the root of why the Reformation was successful.

Contrast that with Islam today. The real money and power is in the hands of the fundamentalists, whether it be the Wahhabis in the Gulf, or the apocalyptic Shia in Iran. I think that an argument could be made that the discovery of huge reservoirs of oil in those areas is ultimately what caused this. Before that, in the days of Laurence of Arabia, the Bedouins of the Arabian peninsula were still living a lifestyle not much different from when their Prophet roamed the dessert there on camels, while much of the rest of Islam had seemingly progressed significantly. Remember, that 40 years before Columbus, Islam had finally breached the walls of Constantinople with cannon, and were only stopped in Europe at the gates of Vienna 60 years before the Spanish Armada, and a decade after Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses. These were not the camel jockeys living in the Arabian deserts.

So, what happens to Islam when the western (primarily English speaking) world takes over as the dominant hydrocarbon producers in the world? Where unearned billions and trillions aren't flowing into 3rd world monarchies, theocracies, and kleptocracies?

Then, again, there is a definite possibility that the statists running this country, from President Obama down through his radical and apologetic cabinet secretaries and agency heads, may be able to delay, if not kill, this boom, at least in this country. After all, it isn't "fair" that we have so much of the money and power, and so much of the world does not. Never mind that maybe one of the reasons that we do have such is that we have moved well beyond the Reformation, and are not stuck trying to recreate the niverana of 7th Century Arabia. Our women are probably even better educated than our men are, and control to a great extent their reproduction. This means that instead of working to overpopulate their countries beyond the resources available to support their children, they can devote themselves to other goals.

Howard said...

The islamic world is like an alcoholic. They need to hit rock bottom and sober up all on their own. This is why fracking for natural gas and oil in western countries and China is important so that we can disengage with islamic nations. However, things will get much much worse before they start to get better.

Achilles said...

Paco Wové said...
"It could be that way again. First we would have to defeat our enemy."

I admire your optimism, thought I don't share it. As someone who has been there, what do you think that defeat would take? How should we be fighting (or perhaps "have fought", now that it looks like we've entered the "declare victory and run away" phase) to ensure something like a real victory?

5/26/13, 11:37 AM

It would be easy. It is literally like fighting blind children. Devious little children who put bombs in places they shouldn't be and kill some of us now and then but honestly the only reason they have any chance is because we place so much deference on civilian casualties. If we went to war, actual war, to defeat the Taliban and destroyed their ability to hide in Pakistan and travel back and forth it would not be difficult.

But is that worth it? Are we willing to look at pictures of dead children? How much is another persons freedom worth? Some consciences seem to be pretty delicate and valuable.

Richard said...

Moderate Islam! LOLOLOLOLOL

Richard said...

Moderate Islam! LOLOLOLOLOL

FleetUSA said...

The term "firebrand legislator" caught by eye. We've got a few we would like to shed too (e.g. Madame ex-Speaker).

Anglelyne said...

Hagar: It was indeed Christians that burned the library at Alexandria (Egypt, not Virginia), and though consisting of scrolls and tablets of various types rather than books as such, the idea is the same.

It's my understanding that this is one of those intractable historical "urban legends" for which there isn't any real evidence. The Great Library was apparently long gone by the date of its alleged burning by a Christian mob, and its destruction anachronistically conflated with later Christian v Pagan mob mischief. (Oh, St. Croix did put up a wiki link outlining this. Never mind.)

I don't think we have to worry about Christians burning down any libraries in Alexandria, Virginia, though there may be other censorious types getting the itch for that sort of thing in days to come.

Saint Croix said...

I think that an argument could be made that the discovery of huge reservoirs of oil in those areas is ultimately what caused this.

Yes, I think that's right. And American greed, and the willingness of our oil companies to promise to keep any Jewish employees out of Saudi Arabia, and to keep any signs of Christianity (Bibles, crosses) hidden and out of sight. We have paid a high price for that little bit of corruption.

I think the USA should appoint a Jewish woman--and only a Jewish woman--to be our ambassador to Saudi Arabia. That's the sort of diplomacy they need to get from us. These "polite" corruptions we are willing to do to appease these people disgust me. There's a moral point that can and must be made.

Saint Croix said...

And, of course, if it's unsafe, if you can't have an American embassy, then you don't have one at all.

wyo sis said...

TLDR
This might or might not be on topic.
If a person sees an evil thing and does not try to change it in some way that person is part of the problem. Governments work the same way. It's important to be able to recognize evil and then try to stop it.
If you aren't trying to stop it you shouldn't be surprised if it eventually spreads to everyone around you and eventually to you yourself.
At the very least we should be helping our children recognize it without making excuses for it.

Achilles said...


It takes someone like Mary to remind us that there is something worse than a violent jihadi. Someone who is given freedom and disrespects and undermines those who value and protect it from a place of safety is at least as bad as a fascist jihadi. See I can play the moral equivalence game too
-----


Your words would have much more effective if US military intervention had proven successful.

Destabilizing countries and dropping bucketloads of $$$$ to no effect is not the answer.

Private charities get better results...

Beat that chest soldierboy.

5/26/13, 11:52 AM

Seriously?

I am not against private charity. In fact if we took all of the entitlements for the "poor" people in the US and gave it in the form of aid to actually poor people in places like Afghanistan I agree it would at least be going to someone who needs it.

But the first thing you need is social stability and the ability to have something without fear of someone stronger than you taking it away. I know it is hard for a pampered little leftist to understand but there are bad people out there. If you were born in Afghanistan you would have been married off to your uncle at 13 and never left the compound you lived in for the rest of your life. I am pretty sure in that situation you would be begging for a little US Army intervention. But empathy is lost on fascists.

Saint Croix said...

Our women are probably even better educated than our men are, and control to a great extent their reproduction. This means that instead of working to overpopulate their countries beyond the resources available to support their children, they can devote themselves to other goals.

Also means we have secular liberals who say it's "right" to kill our babies.

The fight in Afghanistan is a fight over sexuality, and who will control it. In the USA, women have all controls over human sexuality, including the right to kill any unwanted child.

In Afghanistan, men control human sexuality, including the right to sell a 9-year-old child for her to be raped.

These are two horrible, polar extremes. There is a much happier middle ground.

Saint Croix said...

And one of the ways you do diplomacy is by being able to criticize your own country. Liberals can do that in economic matters, but not sexual matters. They can (easily and often) condemn greed, but never lust. And they fail to see that greed and lust are really two sides of the same coin.

edutcher said...

Anglelyne said...

Now you're just babbling.

"The Klan! Nazis! Barbarossa! Pearl Harbor!" Well, those incantations would certainly remove any reasonable person's reservations about the wisdom of our Afghanistan policy.


With Choom at the helm, Mr Surrender At All Costs, of course I have reservations, but Dubya's was working.

And I didn't mention Nazis or Pearl Harbor, but I notice you have no rebuttal for the counter-insurgent campaign in the South or how the Commies did a 180 after the invasion of Russia, so I'll take that as a flag of surrender.

Oh, and all your blather about, "It isn't worth one American life". It's getting to be an old song after 'Nam and Central America and Iraq.

It only lasts until people like you find it's politically expedient to call those men and women baby killers and torturers.

But thanks for the amusement of addressing me as if I were a liberal of some sort. This invoked much mirth chez Anglelyne.

Well, now we know some phony folksy has a feminine side - his new sockpuppet.

Quaestor said...

Saint Croix wrote:
The Sufis are the spiritual people of Islam.

And the Sufis have a hard time being Sufis anywhere in the Middle East except Turkey and Syria (and not so much in Syria these days) They used to be wide-spread, but since the Khomeini revolution the Sufis have become less of a sect and more of a heretical minority in most countries.

Saint Croix said...

If Afghanistan had a New York Times, they would cover the cultural clash in our own country. And the pro-lifers would be the good guys who are opposed to infanticide.

And the feminists would be the bad guys who think it's important to uphold the religious traditions of Roe v. Wade. It's a secular religion, to be sure, but just as dogmatic and irrational.

The Afghanistan New York Times would report how an unelected council of nine people--in black robes--have issued these rules. And while there are mobs in the street who protest, these tribal leaders continue to insist, "it has been decided."

And the Afghanistan New York Times would gives its readers the clear impression that the USA is a backwards country, indeed.

Cedarford said...

There are many, many present and former members of the US Armed Forces that have concluded the 2 trillion, 45,000 casualty mission to transform Islamic countries was a disaster.

The neocons were wrong. There are few if any "Noble Purple-Fingered Freedom LOvers". Far fewer that are Cravers of Western Values, Friends of Israel, Friends of Feminism.

And etermal war to "educate" the Muslim countried the US occupies has not been productive in expanding the minority of Bush's so-called "Freedom Lovers".

Indeed, what population exists are somewhat as suspect as "rice bowl" Christians...the poor or just opportunistic 19th Century Chinese that flocked to missionaries expecting to be rewarded with food, money, influence for claiming to be Christian.

What we have in the way of "allies" in the Middle East is all too often people given huge sums of money to be "pro-American" and to pretend to moderate their views on Jihad.

Leave. Frack like crazy. Get us off Arab oil.
Fix America before we start dreaming of fixing 7th century Muslim lands at gunpoint.
We owe nothing to the "Noble" Syrians, Egyptians, Afghans, Israelis, Lebanese, Turks, Iranians and so on.

Rusty said...


5/26/13, 10:09 AM
Who does that land really belong to Hamas, Fatah, or Hezbullah?

Who ever is strong enough to hold it.

traditionalguy said...

The final sentence said Islam needs women to play their role in Islamic life. That asserts the role of women in a world ruled by male authority only tribal customs is not an Islamic requirement.

OK, it was only Mohammed's requirement.

So the woman's freedom first requires both men and women to lose their fear of Mohammed's warrior and conquest commandments that Mohammed made in the name of Black Rock Al, the moon god idol chosen from among many rocks to be his monotheism version of a god.

Saint Croix said...

And the Sufis have a hard time being Sufis anywhere in the Middle East except Turkey and Syria (and not so much in Syria these days)

Yes, that's right. And that's why the Middle East is filled with bloodshed and hatred!

They used to be wide-spread, but since the Khomeini revolution the Sufis have become less of a sect and more of a heretical minority in most countries.

No, that's wrong. The Sufis dominate in the non-Arabic world. In places like Kosovo (where the Islamic people love the USA and name streets after George W. Bush), these countries are run by Sufis.

Great, great, great article about Sufis here.

David said...

Is there a moderate Islam?

Certainly there are huge numbers of Muslims who are not terrorists and killers.

But are they moderate in the sense that they want to coexist peacefully with non-muslims? Or are they just passive and disengaged?

Who are the leaders of "moderate" Islam? What influence do they have? How long would such a person survive, if he became influential?

The fact that many muslims are not terrorists is not determinative.

Cedarford said...

Saint Croix said...

Yes, I think that's right. And American greed, and the willingness of our oil companies to promise to keep any Jewish employees out of Saudi Arabia, and to keep any signs of Christianity (Bibles, crosses) hidden and out of sight. We have paid a high price for that little bit of corruption.

I think the USA should appoint a Jewish woman--and only a Jewish woman--to be our ambassador to Saudi Arabia. That's the sort of diplomacy they need to get from us. These "polite" corruptions we are willing to do to appease these people disgust me. There's a moral point that can and must be made.



1. Saudi Arabia is one of many countries that still considers themselves formally at war with Israel and International Jewery. They will accept Jews whose position makes it required to accept - Jewish USA visiting Senators, Secretary of States. ME experts, Soviet high ranking Jewish communists in legations - but not rank and file enemy.

2. Islam has never been tolerant, and Saudi Arabia has always been a place that Muslims in even more moderate lands expect not to let Mecca be sullied by visiting infidels, allow Christian missionaries, bible thumping proselytizers in.
The problem is more with the extreme 1st Amendment interpretation that we are somehow required, under our archaic Constitution - to let in nations and wealthy magnates that wish to fund and establish their alien, sometimes anti-West religions here. While banning out culture and ways and religion in their homelands.
This screwup in our Constitution or in Western Europe "blind tolerance" was not obvious until recently. Fortunately we did not have a powerful enemy wrapped in religious guise trying to subvert us. The Aztecs were wiped out before they could benefit from 1st Amendment freedoms. Communism and National Socialism did not have a religious component.

Where we were constitutionally "required" to accept the Soviets building recruitment and hardcore communist centers termed "Holy Temples to Human Progress". Or let wealthy Hitler supporters build Holy Aryan youth movements and Aryan Worship centers all through the USA before and during the last war.

Ideally, we should treat religion as free trade. It's just another commodity. You can't subsidize it and dump it on other shore. And you can only trade with imported Saudi crap ideas if you let American crap ideas into the Magic Kingdom.

3. While Obama has no shortage of wealthy and powerful "progressive" Jewish women he would love to appoint to Saudi Arabia, diplomacy fortunately has a general provision that diplomatic credentials must be accepted by the host country. Otherwise, many countries would love to send and shove down the throats of others - Ambassadors that are blatant insults.
Napoleon could not make the Austrians accept a general that led a campaign that slew 30,000 Austrians as a new Ambassador...and the USA is not required to accept the father or brother of Mohammed Atta as Ambassador should the Egyptian Brotherhood nominate either.


Gary Rosen said...

C-fudd claims he is against violent jihad but like other fakes and liars on the internet he pretends to what he doesn't really believe in order to cleverly (he thinks) advance his real agenda, his sweaty unhinged Jew-baiting.

The reality is that he has gushed over murdering savage Islamic terrorists like Hezbollah, praising them for their "heart and courage". Anything to get da joooos.

Illuninati said...

Phx said:
"....Even if parts of the self-definition of Islam in the Koran are extremist, not all Moslems are fundamentalists. Not all people who self-identify as Jews are implementing the rules of Leviticus or Deuteronomy."

I'm not an expert on Jewish theology but I have questions about this premis. Are there any Jews who are implementing the rules of Leviticus and Deuteronomy? I believe that even extremely conservative Jews interpret the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy through the Oral Torah.


Michael Haz said...

We should be encouraged that liberal feminist Sec State John F Kerry is all over this.

Drago said...

St Croix: "Sorry, this is ignorant. I went to school with guys who were Islamic. They were very nice, very spiritual, very sweet guys. One of them actually lost his family in Afghanistan. Sweetest guy you ever saw."

uh huh.

I'm reminded of a story I read a few years back (it might have been in the New Yorker or Salon or something like that).

I'll look for the link.

The gist of it was that the writer, a liberal, had several muslim friends here in the states (Baltimore?).

He knew them for quite awhile and they often discussed politics and religion very openly and in a "friendly" way. These guys were very "moderate".

After some months of this (and post 9-11 if memory serves), the liberal American mentioned during one of the many discussions that in his western view, Christ was not the son of God and Muhammed was not a messenger or prophet of God.

The muslims all amicably disagreed about that until one of them told the writer that if they happened to be in a muslim country and having this same conversation, that the muslim would have to kill the writer for saying such a thing.

The writer was naturally, as a liberal, shocked at this frank admission that his (the writers) refusal to accept Muhammed as Gods messenger/prophet would mean this fellow who he thought was his "friend" would actually kill him for it.

When the writer asked for clarification about that point, his muslim "friend" reaffirmed it.

We see this writ large all over the western world where "only" 10 to 20% of the billion + muslims are "radical" but vast, vast, majorities actually support many of their actions.

So much for "moderate" islam.

William said...

There are many verses in the Koran that mandate the proper and humane treatment of slaves. In the 19th century Muslim clerics interpreted these verses as meaning God's endorsement of the institution of slavery. Some Muslims actually fought wars to keep this hallowed institution intact. So far as I know, there are no longer any Muslims of any sect who advocate for slavery. So there you have it. It's possible for Islam to adapt.........,I have less hopes for feminism. Why are there no feminists who support our presence in Afghanistan? Why are there no feminists who protest against the abortions in India and China that have led to the non existence of millions of women? Why do feminists not protest the election of a rapist in a country where fifty percent of the women suffer rape. Why is the war on women defined as not paying for Sandra Fluke's diaphragm?

Drago said...

Hagar: "It was indeed Christians that burned the library at Alexandria (Egypt, not Virginia), and though consisting of scrolls and tablets of various types rather than books as such, the idea is the same."

This is in no way an established fact.

There are multiple theories regarding when and under what circumstances the library burned down.

Drago said...

William: " So far as I know, there are no longer any Muslims of any sect who advocate for slavery. So there you have it. It's possible for Islam to adapt.........,I have less hopes for feminism."

Slavery and human trafficking exists everywhere, but is much worse in those areas of the world that are not the West. It is particularly bad in muslim countries.

Saint Croix said...

The muslims all amicably disagreed about that until one of them told the writer that if they happened to be in a muslim country and having this same conversation, that the muslim would have to kill the writer for saying such a thing.

The writer was naturally, as a liberal, shocked at this frank admission...


Your writer sounds like a modern version of Thomas Aikenhead, a Scottish student who was, I'm sure, quite surprised when the Christians hanged him for blasphemy.

"the preachers who were the poor boy's murderers crowded round him at the gallows, and. . . insulted heaven with prayers more blasphemous than anything he had uttered."

Drago said...

Why is it St Croix that you seem constitutionally incapable of discussing the excesses of islam today, TODAY, with events from hundreds of years ago and treating them as equivalent.

Why is it in general that islamist apologists seem to want to talk MORE about those events from hundreds of years ago to avoid having to speak about what is occurring in our backyards this very day?

Rhythm and Balls said...

I don't think it's wrong to try to change aspects of another culture (esp. in an increasingly globalized civilization) that seem clearly wrong. Historically ignorant and naive to the max, sure. But not wrong. And even moreso if you can't get someone "on the inside" who comes from, is legitimately seen as wholly "of" that tradition, and tries with maximal exertion to lead those changes to it. The problem with that, is, once that person is seen as "colluding" with an outside interest, that makes it more difficult. It has to be on their initiative.

After all, look how hard it is to change the American equivalent to the Taliban, the anti-empirical American right-winger. The only thing you can do is defeat them politically.

So given the common understanding of war as politics by other means, moar predator drones!

Also, not to get in the way of the budding Islamic theology experts of Althouse, perched oh so comfortably as they are on their armchairs, but it's probably possible that civilizations in deserts and other places where resources are scarce are bound to be more antagonistic. Where there is not abundance, there is strife.

We will not change people in deserts and the lunar landscapes of Afghanistan into gentle, plantation-running Virginians, any more than we can do the same to death-penalty loving and frontier justice dispensing Texans. People are often as harsh as the landscapes they choose to inhabit.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Oh boy. I can see how lucky we are to have expert Muslim theologian Drago added to the mix. This is sure to be enlightening and informative.

Drago said...

And right on cue our resident Stalinist appears!

Drago said...

Alpha troll: "Where there is not abundance, there is strife"

Well, that explains the rioting in Sweden...

LOL

Rhythm and Balls said...

Stalinist? Meade's following?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well, that explains the rioting in Sweden...

LOL


What do you even know about that, Lord Douchebag?

Any more fallacies of the converse accident you wish to pursue?

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

One can barely comprehend the daily horrors experienced by our muslim "friends" in their Swedish enclaves attempting to claw a bare subsistence existence in the harsh landscape of that frozen northern nation.

It's inevitable that they would riot.

How could they do otherwise as they huddle together in their thin and meager blankets with shoulders turned towards the cold....

Bleak.

Bleak.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Shorter Illogic Troll Drago:

"If violence is likely with scarce resources then people with (a presumption of) more abundant resources are never violent."

This guy is a veritable twat of illogic.

Drago said...

St Croix: "Stalin being a good one."

That would at least get you to within a hundred years of our current condition.

That might be an improvement.

Cedarford said...

Gary Rosen said...
C-fudd claims he is against violent jihad but like other fakes and liars on the internet he pretends to what he doesn't really believe in order to cleverly (he thinks) advance his real agenda, his sweaty unhinged Jew-baiting.

The reality is that he has gushed over murdering savage Islamic terrorists like Hezbollah, praising them for their "heart and courage". Anything to get da joooos.

5/26/13, 1:25 PM
=======================
Why not just write under your usual Baron Zemo or Trooper York nicknames?

Drago said...

I see alpha troll is heavily invested in making up quotes again.

Never a sign of desperation.

lol

Rhythm and Balls said...

What Drago thinks:

If --> then.

Therefore,

If not --> then not.


As I said, a perverter of basic logic.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Which must be and will be pointed out at every opportunity that such illogic takes to raise its ugly head.

Drago said...

I can see it's very important for alpha troll that everyone offers comments that fit perfectly into his/her narrow template.


If they don't, not to worry!

He/she will provide the necessary quote needed for alpha troll to respond wittily!

It's like alpha sees himself as blog-bound Aaron Sorkin!

I can't speak to the amount of cocaine involved however.

LOL

Rhythm and Balls said...

LOL

Me Drago! Me too good for logic!

LOL

Saint Croix said...

Why is it St Croix that you seem constitutionally incapable of discussing the excesses of islam today, TODAY, with events from hundreds of years ago and treating them as equivalent.

Just trying to give you some perspective! It's sloppy, and stupid, to condemn a billion people (whom you have not met and don't know) as brutal killers or sympathetic to brutal killers.

There are nice Muslims and bad Muslims.

Dr. Tiller was going to church when another Christian shot him.

And why do you think 2000 years of Christianity is irrelevant in any discussion of the rightness of Christianity?

I grant you that the present day is much more important to us. But that is hardly a theological or spiritual argument.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Drago:

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that a simple "if-then" statement is too abstruse to "fit perfectly into your narrow template"?

Please clarify.

Drago said...

What's most clear is that for the alpha's of the world, it's critical that no real discussion of what these islamist radicals are doing actually take place.

After all, they are not Christian, white or European.

And we all know that by lefty rules, those are the only characteristics that really matter for determining blame or guilt.

Of course, this can lead to some real moments of cognitive dissonance on the left.

For instance, alpha trolls characterization of American conservatives as the American "Taliban".

We've heard this before, of course.

And we also know what the actual Taliban does to people (especially women and girls).

So, at the same time that the alphas of the world are attempting to minimize the atrocities of the actual Taliban, they are simultaneously conflating the galactically non-parallel actions of American conservatives to those atrocities.

Logic indeed.

Rhythm and Balls said...

And why do you think 2000 years of Christianity is irrelevant in any discussion of the rightness of Christianity?

I personally think that 2000 years of Christianity is 600 years more of learning what it takes to build a civilization (outside of deserts) than certain other traditions have received.

But what the hell! Drago doesn't! Logic bad! Knee-jerky fist-waving good! Rebel against logic!!!

Rhythm and Balls said...

What's most clear is that for the alpha's of the world, it's critical that no real discussion of what these islamist radicals are doing actually take place.

Oh yeah. That's exactly what your invented character thinks. Yup. Just find the quote where that was stated, Mr. Too Good for Facts.

Rhythm and Balls said...

For instance, alpha trolls characterization of American conservatives as the American "Taliban".

Wait, so you're saying that the Taliban represent the liberal, progressive tradition of Afghanistan? Who knew!

David said...

Inga is interested in the rights of all women everywhere. However, she thinks that the United States has no responsibility for protecting the rights of people who are not Americans.

Except people who are in America illegally.

Their rights matter.

Liberals have a series of dogmas. Like Inga, most liberals get tied up in knots where two dogmas collide. They want moral purity, not moral difficulty.

Drago said...

St Croix: "Just trying to give you some perspective! It's sloppy, and stupid, to condemn a billion people (whom you have not met and don't know) as brutal killers or sympathetic to brutal killers"

I do not require your perception of "perspective".

Reality is happening all around you everyday.

Thus, you retreat into discussion regarding actions taken hundreds of years ago.

That's not my fault.

As for "condemning a billion people", I'm doing no such thing.

I'm characterizing the actual threat.

A billion people.

If 10% are "radicalized", that's a hundred million.

If another 20% or so are supportive enough philosophically in the effort, that's a potential network base of support of some 200 million.

If another 20 to 30 percent are philosophically supportive but less inclined to provide some sort of "active" verbal or physical support, that's an even broader network that is equal in population (almost) to the US and united Europe.

Sorry, I don't believe time is well spent dealing with what happened to Scottish lad at the hands of some Christians 500 years ago.

Drago said...

St Croix: "And why do you think 2000 years of Christianity is irrelevant in any discussion of the rightness of Christianity?"

Who is speaking about the "rightness" of any religion?

And why did you make that leap?

LOL

Quite telling.

Saint Croix said...

Drago, that's a good post at 3:19. But of course the New York Times article is a good indication that liberalism is starting to wake up a bit.

If I was doing a movie with an Islamic bad guy, I would make him white just for funsies.

Rhythm and Balls said...

So, at the same time that the alphas of the world are attempting to minimize the atrocities of the actual Taliban, they are simultaneously conflating the galactically non-parallel actions of American conservatives to those atrocities.

Hey, I'd rather minimize an atrocity than maximize one. But maybe that's just me.

Anyway, non-parallel actions are a given. Non-parallel mindsets are not.

You cannot defeat a problem by viewing it through the same lens that you yourself are stuck in. If you think that the more conservative traditions of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia will "defeat" (as if there will be a momentously final, once and for all moment here) anything sympathetic to al Qaeda and the Taliban, I'd love for you to identify it.

In the meantime, we'll keep promoting a dialog of secular, liberal political, social and philosophical thought as the best elixir against 7th century Medina. Within the context of what their own reformers will choose to grab onto.

Saint Croix said...

Who is speaking about the "rightness" of any religion?

People who take religion seriously.

Drago said...

St Croix: "Drago, that's a good post at 3:19. But of course the New York Times article is a good indication that liberalism is starting to wake up a bit."

I agree that SOME liberals are beginning to wake up a bit.

However, given the ascendant status of the Left (like alpha troll) as opposed to liberals, it doesn't make a lot of difference.

The left is overwhelming the libs.

St Croix: "If I was doing a movie with an Islamic bad guy, I would make him white just for funsies."

To make that movie today, and I'm not sure you could without major difficulty, you'd HAVE to have some white guy some how running the show.

Of course, if you made that white guy look and speak like W or Cheney, your path would be much much easier.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Right, St. Croix. There was a good 3:19 comment, but I suspect the one you lauded was the B.S. post preceding it.

Conservatives of Arabia! I call upon you from America to reform Islam!

Yup.

Drago said...

St Croix: "People who take religion seriously."

More specifically, how did the "rightness" of any religion come into play in this conversation?

This is simply a realpolitik and balance of power (direct and asymmetric) discussion about the landscape we find ourselves in today.

That is how I have been framing my posts.

Drago said...

Yes alpha troll, we can hear you banging the pots and pans.

Don't worry, we'll get to you.

Possibly.

If there's time.

Though there probably won't be.

You can salve your ego (which you need no encouragement to do, I realize) with your innermost belief in your own superiority.

I hope that helps.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The left is overwhelming the libs.

Wherein Drago attempts his acknowledgment that liberalism is needed in the world, esp moreso than conservatism when it comes to Arabia, but in the most back-handed way that he can muster.

I'm glad he knows more than me about liberalism. Just like he knows more about Islam than Muslims.

Isn't everyone relieved that he can speak so informatively about all this? I wish I were.

Actually, it's not a big deal. But it is amusing to watch. ;-) "Liberalism GOOD. 'Leftism' BAD". Lol.

edutcher said...

If the best Ritmo can do is talk about Conservatives as the American Taliban, it just shows how lame he's gotten.

As the last couple of weeks have shown, the American Taliban is the mindless Left.

Rhythm and Balls said...

You can salve your ego (which you need no encouragement to do, I realize) with your innermost belief in your own superiority.

I hope that helps.


As a non-conservative I believe in my inherent capacity for reason, which is a good enough claim to superiority over you.

Luckily, we also believe that others are capable of reason. Like some Arabians, for instance. Not the type that you'd identify with, of course. But that's ok. I'm sure there are some types over there more enamored of weapons than words, and with them you'd fit in very well.

It's like a Rodney King moment for reactionaries. ;-) Warms my heart.

Baron Zemo said...

For the record, Gary Rosen is a totally different person than I am so don't kid yourself pal.

There are much more than one person who thinks that Cedarford is a irredeemable Nazi and Jew Hater.

I have no problem calling you out as I have many times.




Drago said...

edutcher: "If the best Ritmo can do is talk about Conservatives as the American Taliban, it just shows how lame he's gotten."

I'd be interested in any evidence that he/she was ever 'not lame'.

I mean, I suppose I could employ the alpha troll tactic of simply generating my own version of alphas' comments, but there's something laughably adolescent about that and I simply can't bring myself to do that.

Alpha, you'll note, has no such compunction.

Rhythm and Balls said...

If the best Ritmo can do is talk about Conservatives as the American Taliban, it just shows how lame he's gotten.

Of course I can do (and have done) a lot more.

But why not get my jollies off of a smackdown back at the ideological equivalent of the Taliban over here while I do it? It's not like they don't give every moderating and progressive element (except in the Middle East) grief at every turn anyway, is it?

As the last couple of weeks have shown, the American Taliban is the mindless Left.

Awwww.... Is that "the best you can do"? Or just "how lame you've gotten"?

LOL

Rhythm and Balls said...

Drago - fighting me is confusing you from the struggle against the enemy abroad. What do you think it is getting you?

Baron Zemo said...

Why would anyone think that Islam and the countries that wallow in it are worth the life of one of our soldiers.

We need to drill and utilize fracking and whatever else it takes to get us off our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. If we cut off their money or at least make it harder for them to get it we can let them fight it out like crabs in a bucket.

Let them rot.

Inga said...

Inga said...
"Why would we Westerners think we could change their culture? The Afghan women are screwed and it's not our place to protect them forever."

5/26/13, 9:49 AM
------------------------------------
"Coward.

Is the anything you would fight for? I thought women's rights were important to you. Or is it only YOUR women's rights and not OTHER women's rights?

I was happy to go over there and fight on behalf of others freedom. Even for someone who doesn't think it was worth fighting for like you. We all volunteered you know. And there were some women that came out with us. If you thought we were tough on the scum over there you should talk to some of the women in the army that saw what was done to the women over there."

5/26/13, 11:02 AM
Idiot , I don't need to talk to women in the Army, my own daughter was with the Marines in Afghanistan for an entire year.

Drago said...

alpha: "Of course I can do (and have done) a lot more."

Of course you have alpha. Of course you have.

There there lad.

alpha: "It's not like they don't give every moderating and progressive element (except in the Middle East) grief at every turn anyway, is it?"

Yes alpha. You and yours have been very put upon.

It's a wonder you've held up under such horrendous conditions!

It's almost as though you are muslim minorities in Swedish enclaves struggling against nature herself to eke out some sort of living.

You are very brave.

LOL

Drago said...

Inga: Idiot , I don't need to talk to women in the Army, my own daughter was with the Marines in Afghanistan for an entire year."

LOL

And there's this one blog that she reads too.

Although, I realize that my mentioning that is probably equivalent to (in Inga's words) "putting a dick on her".

You know, upon reflection, could that comment by Inga be MORE Freudian? I think not.

LOL

Rhythm and Balls said...

Drago, thanks for showing Muslims how your preference for ridicule, castigation, ignorance and antagonism make your civilization superior to theirs. I'm certain that this is the best example and proof of cultural superiority.

You about done yet? It's not clear what you're adding to the discussion but by all means, feel free to continue not having a point.

Drago said...

alphas attempts to detract from muslims beheading people in the streets in western cities continues unabated.

Illuninati said...

Saint Croix said:
"Just trying to give you some perspective! It's sloppy, and stupid, to condemn a billion people (whom you have not met and don't know) as brutal killers or sympathetic to brutal killers.

There are nice Muslims and bad Muslims."

Whether Muslims are "nice" or not depends on how seriously they take the Koran and the hadiths. The more serious they are about their religion, the less "nice" they are.

Rhythm and Balls said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rhythm and Balls said...

alphas attempts to detract from muslims beheading people in the streets in western cities continues unabated.

Oh yeah. That's exactly what I did. Somehow, somewhere, in an alternate universe...

phx said...

I'm not an expert on Jewish theology but I have questions about this premis. Are there any Jews who are implementing the rules of Leviticus and Deuteronomy? I believe that even extremely conservative Jews interpret the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy through the Oral Torah.

Did anyone respond to this? Is there anyone who has an answer?

Drago said...

I notice in all of alphas excuse making for the murderous inclinations of his radical islamist fellow travelers, the primary one is, naturally, the Marxist one.

No surprise there.

And yet, one need only to look at what Israel has done with the land under it's control (turning deserts into agricultural centers) and then to think about the $$$ flowing thru muslim capitals for 50 years and not come to some pretty basic conclusions about those societies.

Of course, those observations and the inescapable conclusions one can derive from them completely negate the Marxist outlook of the alphas of the world.

Lydia said...

How about a little actual history?

Here's Bernard Lewis on moderation in Islam:

"A form of moderation has been a central part of Islam from the very beginning. True, Muslims are nowhere commanded to love their neighbors, as in the Old Testament, still less their enemies, as in the New Testament. But they are commanded to accept diversity, and this commandment was usually obeyed. The Prophet Muhammad's statement that "difference within my community is part of God's mercy" expressed one of Islam's central ideas, and it is enshrined both in law and usage from the earliest times.

This principle created a level of tolerance among Muslims and coexistence between Muslims and others that was unknown in Christendom until after the triumph of secularism. Diversity was legitimate and accepted. Different juristic schools coexisted, often with significant divergences.

Sectarian differences arose, and sometimes led to conflicts, but these were minor compared with the ferocious wars and persecutions of Christendom. Some events that were commonplace in medieval Europe— like the massacre and expulsion of Jews—were almost unknown in the Muslim world. That is, until modern times.

Occasionally more radical, more violent versions of Islam arose, but their impact was mostly limited. They did not become really important until the modern period when, thanks to a combination of circumstances, such versions of Islamic teachings obtained a massive following among both governments and peoples.

From the start, Muslims have always had a strong sense of their identity and history. Thanks to modern communication, they have become painfully aware of their present state. Some speak of defeat, some of failure. It is the latter who offer the best hope for change.

For the moment, there does not seem to be much prospect of a moderate Islam in the Muslim world. This is partly because in the prevailing atmosphere the expression of moderate ideas can be dangerous—even life-threatening. Radical groups like al Qaeda and the Taliban, the likes of which in earlier times were at most minor and marginal, have acquired a powerful and even a dominant position.

But for Muslims who seek it, the roots are there, both in the theory and practice of their faith and in their early sacred history."

Drago said...

alpha: "Hey, I'd rather minimize an atrocity than maximize one."

Yes, we know. We've seen it often enough.

Sort of begs the question: How does one "maximize" an "atrocity"?

That should be interesting.

alpha: " But maybe that's just me."

Nope. It's not just you. It's pretty much all leftists.

Nothing new here.

Drago said...

Lydia, thank for you posting the excerpt from Mr. Lewis.

I have found his writings on the long historical arcs of Islam and west (as well as other cultures) most enlightening.

I think St Croix on this topic today is speaking a lot to what Lewis is saying historically.

I am not. For me, at this point in time (and "this point in time" is really to be measured in decades) the real issues are what the true impact of large scale radicalization of muslims in key positions of power across the globe mean to the US>

Now layer onto that the tech advances that will allow us to continue to draw our (the US and entire West) own hydrocarbon resources in greater and greater percentages will, over time, exert even greater stress on the middle eastern nations that have become more radicalized and you have an even stronger potential for mass action.



Saint Croix said...

The more serious they are about their religion, the less "nice" they are.

Hundreds of millions of Sufis would say you are wrong.

Clearly Wahhabi terrorism has done great harm to our perception of the Islamic religion. Islam has started wars with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and secularists. Indeed, Islam starts wars with Islam all the time.

But it's simply wrong to say that fundamentalist Islam is the only possible Islam, or the "true" Islam. Wrong and quite stupid as a tactical matter.

Sufis are, in fact, open-minded and nice. Read up on them.

phx said...

That was worth reading @Lydia.

Saint Croix said...

Thanks for that quote, Lydia, Lewis is awesome.

Drago said...

St Croix: "But it's simply wrong to say that fundamentalist Islam is the only possible Islam, or the "true" Islam. Wrong and quite stupid as a tactical matter."

Which is why no one here is saying that.

You keep dredging up strawmen instead of addressing the issues raised head on.

There is a huge number of radicalized muslims (even if a "small % of a large overall #) who are willing to engage the west in war to the finish.

Your continued bringing up examples of Christian atrocities/crimes, etc. from hundreds of years ago provides moral cover for those who wish to engage in that activity.

This is basic.

Illuninati said...

Lydia from Bernard Lewis:

"This principle created a level of tolerance among Muslims and coexistence between Muslims and others that was unknown in Christendom until after the triumph of secularism. Diversity was legitimate and accepted. Different juristic schools coexisted, often with significant divergences"

My reading of the history of the Byzatine empire seems at odds with Dr. Lewis' sweeping generalization about all Christendom. Jews in the Byzatine empire were generally treated as citizens with the rights of citizens. The Jews were the agressors there. Centuries before the Crusades, the Jews in Jerusalem joined up with the Persians, rebelled against the Byzatines, and slaughtered the Christian inhabitants. This did not spark any retalitory riots from the Christians in the rest of the Empire.

The Western Empire struggled with repeated barbarian invasions and it took centuries for Europe to reestablish a stable culture.

edutcher said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

If the best Ritmo can do is talk about Conservatives as the American Taliban, it just shows how lame he's gotten.

Of course I can do (and have done) a lot more.


Actually, you haven't. Resurrecting old invective, lame even at the time, just shows how far gone you are, sweetie.

But why not get my jollies off of a smackdown back at the ideological equivalent of the Taliban over here while I do it? It's not like they don't give every moderating and progressive element (except in the Middle East) grief at every turn anyway, is it?

In this case, if you want to "smackdown back at the ideological equivalent of the Taliban over here", you'll have to do it in front of a mirror.

(always did think he was into S&M)

As the last couple of weeks have shown, the American Taliban is the mindless Left.

Awwww.... Is that "the best you can do"? Or just "how lame you've gotten"?


No, I'm just recapping your Messiah's attempts over the last few years to suppress any opinion other than his own.

Illuninati said...

Saint Croix said:
"But it's simply wrong to say that fundamentalist Islam is the only possible Islam, or the "true" Islam. Wrong and quite stupid as a tactical matter.

Sufis are, in fact, open-minded and nice. Read up on them"

You are already down to a small minority of Muslims. I agree that the Sufis are less threatening than traditional Muslims. A Hindu who deals with Muslims every day told me that the Sufis are less dangerous than other Muslims but are still dangerous. Sufism is a subset of Sunni Islam and they accept the literal interpretation of the Koran and hadiths. In addition to the literal interpretation, they believe there are mystical meanings to the Koran which distracts them somewhat from the inherent violence in the Koran.

To the best of my knowledge, fundamentalist Islam is the majority Islam which has existed from the seventh century. The Turks took over the Christian Byzatine empire gradually and maintained many of its institutions in a modified form. Therefore the Ottoman empire was somewhat less opressive than the founders of Islam. The Wahabis are the reformers who have have returned to the original texts.

I don't believe it is up to outsiders to pick a "true" Islam. We can talk to them and read their holy books, but Muslims themselves are the ones who have decided that the Koran is directly dictated from God and that Mohammad is the perfect example which all Muslims should emulate. If you can find any sizeable group of Muslims who disagree with that premis, please let me know.

Cedarford said...

Baron Zemo said...
For the record, Gary Rosen is a totally different person than I am so don't kid yourself pal.

There are much more than one person who thinks that Cedarford is a irredeemable Nazi and Jew Hater.

I have no problem calling you out as I have many times.

=========================
Doubt it.
As far as I see, you use the same words and adjectives, but your Gary Rosen sockpuppet is a one dimensional ad hominem device.

No one is a Nazi these days, and there are very few Stalinists left.

And there are, on the other hand, many people that are still happily critical and nonplussed on "hater!" comebacks...about being critical of China,Inc., of the Islamoids, of the Jews, of the Fundie Christians, of black thuggery, Saudis, feminists, American blundering abroad, contempt of NORKs, Mexican corruption, Euro wimps, of Ruling Elites, of the Gaystapo, of neocons...

Only a few of those groups endlessly whine and whine that any that criticize them HAVE to be racists, bigots, phobics, and so on.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Oh nice. Now Drago Douchebag is lecturing me on Israel. I happen to actually be in an Israeli restaurant right now. They have any of those in Colorado, Drac? What foods do you think they're serving me?

Ever been to Israel, Drac?

I hope one day they might find a way to bring Israel to your armchair, Drac, since that's about the only way a redneck like you will ever know anything about it.

Baron Zemo said...

Cedarford said....
Doubt it.
As far as I see, you use the same words and adjectives, but your Gary Rosen sockpuppet is a one dimensional ad hominem device.

No one is a Nazi these days, and there are very few Stalinists left.



Don't sell yourself short dude. You are an authentic Nazi of the first water. Your Jew-hating is very comprehensive as is your sympathy for Hamas and the others who join you in your fondness for the final solution.

It is amazing to me how so many here tolerate you and agree with your opinions. I guess you get a free ride because you don't attack same sex marriage.

Baron Zemo said...

If I was going to use a Jewish name for a sock puppet it would not be Gary Rosen.

It would be Meyer Suchowljansky.

Baron Zemo said...

Hey Ritmo.....if you are really in an Israeli restaurant remember.....take the hummus and leave the Hamas.

Rhythm and Balls said...

C Fudd hates Jews just enough to believe they will orchestrate a destructive conspiracy of the world, but apparently not enough to stop using the same GOOGLE that those evil Jews invented as a means of doing so.

In this way, he is rather like Drago in ensuring that ignorance and prejudice dictate his incoherent dogmas and ad hoc beliefs.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Did you see Bruno asking that terrorist about hummus and Hamas? Hilarious.

Methadras said...

Listen to me. There is no such thing as moderate islam. There never was, there never will be. This is between the wolves and the sheep of islam. Guess who is winning.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Shhhh! Don't tell the. Zionist Conspiracy Committee, but C Fudd uses Israeli made Pentium processors.

What a sell-out. Poseur.

jr565 said...

This principle created a level of tolerance among Muslims and coexistence between Muslims and others that was unknown in Christendom until after the triumph of secularism. Diversity was legitimate and accepted. Different juristic schools coexisted, often with significant divergences.

This is a soft pedaling of sorts. THere were times when Islam was more tolerant of other groups living amongst Muslims than others. But they needed to know their place.
They had to pay the jizya tax, and for example christians couldn't have their temples be higher than Islamic ones. ANd they had to wear their dhimma clothing signifying they were lower caste. And they didn't have the same rights as Muslims.
But so long as they knew their place and didn't get uppity (and paid their protection money) they were allowed to live.

Baron Zemo said...

Wait a minute.

A jizzy tax sounds like something Titus would charge.

Are you sure you have that right?

Rhythm and Balls said...

I've got to agree with Trooper. If anyone were to pick a sock puppet name, Gary Rosen is a pretty lame one. No offense, Gary.

You could at least use "Sol Rosenberg", and then claim to be behind the Jerky Boys.

Rhythm and Balls said...

"A jizzy tax sounds.."

like something Will Smith might get jiggy wit'?

edutcher said...

Ritmo iis in an Israeli restaurant, so that makes him an expert on Israel?

It is to laugh.

Dean Douthat said...

There is no fight between extreme and moderate Islam for the simple reason that there is no moderate Islam. There are only two kinds of Muslims: Jihadists and apostates.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Oh yeah, ed. It was just that, no more. That and bible school and The 700 Club.

You honestly have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?

Drago said...

alpha troll: "Ever been to Israel, Drac?"


Many times.

Why?

Drago said...

BTW, if you happen to be in Tel Aviv I can recommend the MASH bar.

The last time I was there they wouldn't let us pay for our drinks.

Now that was a fun night.

Drago said...

edutcher: "Ritmo iis in an Israeli restaurant, so that makes him an expert on Israel?"

Well, to be fair to alpha troll, he's probably watched some interesting stuff on the travel channel as well.

Drago said...

For alpha trolls next trick, he'll explain how the Climate Research Unit never really lied about their data and then never really lost their data because he (alpha troll)once ate a bit of toast with tea in East Anglia.

Michael said...

Drago. I just returned from a hubbly bubbly on the Edgeware road in London. I will weign in tomorrow on Lebanon. Hilarious thread. Israeli restaurant. LMAO.

Rusty said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
Oh yeah, ed. It was just that, no more. That and bible school and The 700 Club.

You honestly have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?

Irony defined.

Drago said...

I don't think we will be hearing from alpha again this evening.

Nor should we.

If he is actually in Israel the fun is just starting to really crank up there.

Alpha, make sure you spend lots of your parents dollars. I'm ok with that if it helps our Israeli brothers and sisters.

Shalom baby.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The Gentile Patrol of Drago, Michael and Rusty has outed me as not Israeli enough.

But Drac's been discoing in Tel Aviv so the next time I'm in the Golani DMZ I'll ask him just how to shimmy.

Lekh tizdayen, Draco. Or, as they won't teach you on the next Pilgrim Tour your church takes you on, לך תזדין.

Rhythm and Balls said...

When not comparing Israel ties, Michael and Drac like to compare foreskins.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I bet Drac took issue with the mashgiach that visited the restaurant (mis'adah for wanna-be's) I was just at. You know, because he's just that much more Israeli than they. His church taught him all he knows about kashrut.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Wait! Where did all the wanna-be Hebraicizers go?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Maybe they're just confused Philistines. That would make more sense.

Rhythm and Balls said...

So where did Drac, Mike, ed and any other members of "The Unchosen Few" go to?

Enjoy your Sunday, guys.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I actually really like the north of Israel.

I remember being in Tzfat, and seeing this guy/rabbi? in tallit (I think you guys call it "prayer shawl") on horseback ("soos", for the wanna-bes) galloping about on a ridge.

It was a cool sight.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Maybe Drac (I'll call him Dalet) will mdaber Ivrit with me another day.

Drago said...

alpha: "Maybe Drac (I'll call him Dalet) will mdaber Ivrit with me another day.

Hmm, I don't speak Hebrew.

Drago said...

Me: "Hmm, I don't speak Hebrew"

Of course, I don't speak Austrian either.

I hope that doesn't count against me.

Drago said...

Oh look, alpha made a foreskin joke while in Israel!

The lad is trying too hard I fear.

Drago said...

alpha: "It was a cool sight."

Actually that would be a cool sight.

Always have the camera ready to go.

Will you be making it up to the Golan?

Drago said...

alpha: "Wait! Where did all the wanna-be Hebraicizers go?"

Uh, dinner time in Denver?

Why are you still online?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Dalet reminds me of the guys who speak English so exclusively that when they try to ask the grocers in מחנה יהודה how much the goods cost, by breaking out with "כמה זה עולה", they don't even bother answering back in Hebrew. They just say, "Five".

I think I'm going to type all the pertinent phrases from here on out in Hebrew. Not even italicized transliterations. Straight-up Hebrew. For all my Hebrew friends at Althouse. Not poseurs or concern trolls, at all, they. They be the real thing.

Drago said...

alpha: "Not poseurs or concern trolls, at all, they. They be the real thing."

Make sure you let all your legit Hebrew pals know how diligent you are in minimizing islamist atrocities.

That will go over like gang-busters there.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Why are you still online?

I dunno. Is it required that I be in Denver? Because I'm not. And I guess it's no longer dinner time here.

Neither is it in ארץ הקודש.

Drago said...

alpha: "I dunno. Is it required that I be in Denver?"

LOL

What?!

alpha: "Because I'm not."

LOL

Thanks for clearing that up.

alpha: "And I guess it's no longer dinner time here."

Well, it all depends.

If you are of a more European mind about such things and happen to be in Denver, then dinner time has not yet arrived.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 259   Newer› Newest»