"But radical Islamists have laid out repeatedly what inspires them to fight and die."
Yes. Islam and the glory of Allah.
"They speak of many issues but the issues that D’Souza is worked up over aren’t among them. You don’t find them complaining about gay marriage"
On the contrary. They do complain about such things as gay marriage and even advocate the execution of homosexuals.
"but about US support for Israel. You don’t find messages from bin Laden condemning Hollywood but he does speak about US intervention in the Middle East."
Here you seem to suggest that if US support for Israel and the US presence in the Middle East ended, then the Jihad against the Infidel world would end? But that takes no account of Islam's Jihad imperative that makes it a religious duty to fight and subdue the unbeliever, not for anything that the unbeliever might do or be, but simply because they are unbelievers.
Richard: I don't think anyone at this point -- at least, anyone who is mildly aware -- would make the claim that the last bit you said was true.
The problem is, such groups have to "cash in" as it were on the underlying outrage in society at large. This is to say, jihadists aren't the disease; they are a symptom of it. If the things creating outrage in "muslim/arab" society were no longer in fact the case, then simple internal national defense measures would be wholly sufficient to handle any threat they might exude during their *actual* "last gasp."
For example; most Iranians like America, and the freedoms which are emblematic of it. However, most Iranians also state they would die before allowing America to invade their country.
... sadly, that shouldn't seem dichotomous to *anyone*, yet it does.
'nough said, for now.
"The problem is, such groups have to "cash in" as it were on the underlying outrage in society at large"
But it takes very little, to the pious muslim, to cause outrage. It can be anything from the existence of Israel to a skirt being too short to a harmless cartoon in a paper, or the fact that some are homosexuals. The writer of the blog above makes out that the only outrage is the existence of Israel and the US presence in the ME, which is patently not true. Israel doesn't fuel the Jihad, religious piety does, and any attempt to pretend otherwise is dishonest, and any attempt to give them - the Jihadists - what they want on that, is cowardly appeasement just as bad as D'Souza. It's worse than primitive savages throwing virgins to the rain god, because at least they can plead ignorance.
Richard: Your points are essentially correct, and yet:
without the outrage of the moderate muslim, the pious/fundamentalist muslim cannot help but become marginalized. It is only to the moderates that we in America must appeal. We can do this simply by showing respect for their *nations*.
The same holds true in our own nation; without the electoral and fiscal support of the moderate american, the radical/fundamentalist/extremist christian cannot help but be marginalized.
It is precisely this failure of moderate America to realize the predatory nature of this form of Christianity in our nation that has lead to where we stand today. Unequivocably and incontrovertiably this is so.
What do you mean, "without outrage of the moderate muslim the" Jihadists "are marginalised"? What are the moderate muslims outraged about? If you're suggesting that it's Israel, and that Israel should be thrown to the wolves, then I can't countenance that. How about we throw homosexuals to the wolves? Homosexuals cause outrage, so lets toss them the gays. Or maybe that won't be enough to appease them do you think? How about Israel and the Gays? I think you've missed the point, Ian. The Jihadists appeal to the so-called moderate muslims religiosity, not their outrage, but their religiosity - religiosity is the engine, not anything else. Israel, or Homosexuality, or the decadent dancing that so offended Qutb, are merely conduits for their religiosity; something to focus on and vent over. Something unIslamic. If the writer of the above block wants to throw Israel to the wolves, as it appears to me he does, then he's as ludicrous and craven on this issue as D'Souza.
Richard; you couldn't be more wrong. Homosexuals are far from the bearers of guilt and fault that the State of Israel is.
Plain and simple; Israel is an aggressor state with Imperialist designs. Israel as a State has repeatedly broken its promises to grant the Palestinians any measures of freedom from Israeli presence; take for example the repeated promises -- each broken -- to remove the presence of armed "civilian" hill colonies from 'Palestine', to forbid the settling of new such encampments, to free the *UNCHARGED* Palestinians kept in subterranean prisons. Take for further example the unequivocal endorsement by the State of Israel of the practice of torture, in "intelligence" AND in "prison pacification."
Israel deserves no military or economic support from the US based on its own laurels. 'Nough said.
If Israel were an agressor nation the Palestinians would have ceased to exist ages ago, but regardless of that, you are judging (out of context as it is), from your liberal worldview and assuming that Jihadists judge from the same, by your liberal standards. But they do not. They judge by their Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah shaped mentalities. To that mentality, homosexuals, like Israel, are unIslamic, so they have to go. You, as an infidel, must be subjugated, and if you don't submit to that, then you have to go too. There is no room for anything unIslamic under Islam. Perhaps one day you will wake up to that fact, but I rather think that you will prefer to just submit. If you throw Israel to the wolves though, then you don't deserve your freedom anyway.
I always find it funny how conservatives say that as a liberal I just can't understand; and how liberals say that as a conservative, I just can't understand.
Richard:
In your failure to refute the factual statements made about the behaviors of Israel, you reveal either a lack of knowledge or an absolute bias. In either sense, in the context of this conversation of a debate, your position has just become wholly untenable.
I do not in any context support aggressor ideologies, or governmental bodies. I endorse the impeachment process currently in absolute halt despite the Monroe Procedures.
In short; not only are you wrong, you are dangerously wrong. I will however take the more positive spin and assume you simply don't know what you're talking about. Try reading up on the military conflicts in the region, starting with the militaristic expansion of the borders of Israel which was begun some three decades ago and hasn't yet in factuality ceased, even if diplomatically it is unrecognized.
Have fun! Either way, this conversation's over.
Ian, I am not a "conservative" I am a Libertarian. It's funny. You'd no doubt spin yourself as a liberal, and no doubt, fair minded, yet you cut the conversation as soon as you think you might be talking to a "conservative". There seems to be an almost pathological hatred of conservatives around. I haven't said that "as a liberal you just can't understand". My thinking is that, as a human being you have a brain, so of course you can understand, as can anyone with a brain. As for Israel, and support or lack of support for it, I see their war as our war, their enemy equally as our enemy, so for our own sakes we must fight their enemy, and that is regardless of Israels faults. For all its faults it is NOT a tyrannical regime bent on the total destruction of freedom. The enemy is, so let Israel fall at your own peril. The day it falls, I hope you feel pleased. I will simply feel disgusted and sick, and not because I'm a conservative or unthinking, but because I value a free world, and the fall of Israel to our enemies would be a MAJOR step towards a very dark dark world, out of civilisation and into barbarism.
Here is Israels enemy:
http://www.sweetness-light.com/a...dercover-
mosque
Richard: Get a hobby. You hobby horse is getting old since this is the only, only topic you ever post on. Don't you have anything else to say?
My hobby horse might be getting old to you, Jim, but the global Jihad is not; it is only just warming up. When I see the kind of misdiagnosis of it that you make, I have to comment. Anyway, for anyone interested, there's some debating coming up over D'Souza's book, (hopefully the links will post ok) here:
Let the debate begin
National Review is pushing Dinesh D'Souza's silly and misleading book hard, running an ad that proclaims "Let the Debate Begin." This is ironic in light of the fact that I have heard not a word from NR's Kathryn Lopez about my [Robert Spencer] open invitation to debate D'Souza there. I guess what NR is running is really a Henry Ford-style debate invitation: you can have any color car you like as long as it's black, and let the debate begin, as long as there is only one participant.
Anyway, the debate between D'Souza and me really is going to begin, tomorrow night at 7PM PST, 10PM EST, on Lores Rizkalla's radio show. You will be able to listen online here.
Also, D'Souza himself has told me that we are scheduled to debate at CPAC in March, but I have heard nothing from CPAC about this myself and thus cannot consider it confirmed. I'll keep you posted.
You can read my initial responses to D'Souza's book here, here, and here, and Hugh Fitzgerald's here, here, and here. Also, I am just about to start writing a full review of the book.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
archiv...99.php#comments
Commenting by HaloScan
