BILL MAHER: Comparing Islam to Christianity regarding violence is liberal bull.....

They both come from the same hereditary plutocracy. Outlaw that class and we will have rational, sincere, and realistic politics. Now we have a puppet show, made to seem sincere by their captive media flunkies.

More important, they are working this scam together. The phony Left comes up with the most outrageous positions it can think of in order to trick the puppet show's spectators into supporting the Right. Look at the Right-Wing talk-show nannies. Their whole show is based on attacking the fake positions that their Leftist fraternity brothers feed them, slipping in a few independently Conservative opinions once the on-air airheads get their audience all worked up with the fake Liberals' intentional provocations.

I'm not saying that they got together at prep-school bull-sessions and planned all this. Instinctively, they are mindlessly driven to show loyalty to the illegitimate class they were born in; it is their whole identity. If they sincerely disagree with my analysis, they are lying to themselves about what really motivates them, which is the worst form of insincerity.

 

The wishful-thinking phrase used to pacify intellectuals into continuing their useless scribbling is "The Pen is Mightier Than the Sword." That is only true if the pen is writing out an order for swords.

 

I'm more impressed with Howard Stern. When the first suicide bomber crashed into the WTC, he immediately said, "Maybe it's terrorism." So did I.

Everybody else in Stern's studio ignored this insight. Soon they were back discussing whether Stern had gotten laid on his date with Pamela Anderson.

Likewise, a lack of insight and indication of incompetence, made by that Affirmative Action bimbo Condoleeza Rice, was that no one had ever heard of using a hijacked airliner as a bomb. But the Israelis notified everybody of that jihadist tactic back on February 23, 1973. It was their explanation of why they shot down a Libyan airliner that had entered their territory.

 

I'm not the person with no ability to think. The difference you are making is basically that since European Christians of 4 centuries ago had little contact with the wider world that made their behavior better than that of Muslims of today who get barraged by Western culture which obviously should turn them into virtual Americans in no time. Even within the zeitgeist, those Christian fanatics would have happily used nukes on the heretics, so my point remains valid.

As for the nature of the Islamo-fascists, it is exactly that dichotomy between the dominant modern world and the world of Islam that they are trying to deal with. Our problem is they have chosen the worst possible solution; they want to "purify" Islam (code words for mass slaughter and death camps, if they ever take power in a major Muslim nation) and they want to unite as much of Islam under a new Caliphate (have an Islamo-fascist dictator tell as many Muslims as possible what to do). This will somehow magically transform the Islamic world and make them the shining beacons of the world again.

Under this plan (fantasy?), their beef with us is that we exist. We are not Muslim, we don't follow Sharia law (especially their extra-strict version of it) and we are the most successful culture on the planet. They need to attack us in order to prove that we are not as strong or as admirable as we appear, and they need to provoke retaliatory attacks on Muslims (and especially Muslim nations) so they can use such attacks to recruit more adherents.

This is why the President has wisely avoided the word "war", because we can't define who we are at war with. The Islamofascists are only a shade worse than some Islamists, but some Islamists are comparatively moderate and not engaged in active terrorism against us. Or what about Israel; Islam has a legitimate beef with the Israelis for picking on the mainly Muslim Palestineans - do we consider all terrorism directed against Israel to be part of our "war".

If an attack is launched by citizens of a Muslim country, do we invade that country or do we insist they crack down on such extremists? The case of 9/11 shows a massive disconnect: we went after the nation (Afghanistan) that allowed a base for Al-Qaeda while going very slow and diplomatic with Saudi Arabia the important oil producer who provided 14 of the 19 attackers on 9/11.

Your problem, RR, is you seem to think all answers to political questions are simple ones. They are not, and trying to force the world into the narrow categories you apparently set up will inevitably end up surprising you and not the world. Try letting a little complexity seep into your politics. If you want to kill Muslims, make sure they are the right ones in the right place at the right time.

 

There's usually a lot more simplicity to things than folks willingly admit. Admitting that we have a blood enemy at war with us would be a very simple step yet it's avoided like the plague by this administration. Discussing steps 2-99 make no sense when step 1 won't occur because of the 'complexity'.

Islam isn't burdened by this 'complexity'. They attack the weak horse. We need to eschew that label through easy to interpret action. And that will never happen.

 

Your over-simplicity is staring you in the face, RR. Islam is 1.4 billion people: if they were all the equivalent of Al-Qaeda we would have real war and massive amounts of terrorism. Since the facts don't fit your simplistic view, try figuring out what is really going on. So who is the blood enemy? One-fifth of the world's population? If that were the case, we ought to nuke most of them and "solve" the problem once and for all. Now there's a simplistic solution.

Now if it is some percentage of Islam (which I agree is the case) the problem becomes which particular Muslims and Muslim movements are our enemies AND HOW CAN WE MOST EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH THEM? That necessity is what leads to discussing "steps 2 to 99", as you dismissively put it. Even in a outright war, generals use something called strategy to figure out where and when to attack the enemy in what force and try to gather as much information as possible in order to determine that strategy.

 

I would have more respect for Islam if they formed Battalions, civisions, Corps, and Armies and faced us like men. That said, Islam is at war with the west, but the west is so guilt ridden over what ever false interpretations of history they are influenced by, that they refuse to admit that Islam is invading their countries with intent to harm by violence or take over. The truth Muslims are the radicals.

 

So Never Left also feels that one-fifth of the world's population is effectively at war with us. I agree that a few bleeding heart liberals will make any excuse for any action by any Muslim but the overwhelming population of Western countries and the USA in particular do not ascribe to that viewpoint. There are definitely more people like Radio Refugee and Never Left who believe the entirety of Islam is our enemy than there are head-in-the-sand liberals who feel no-one in Islam is our enemy.

Looking at the cold hard facts, neither extreme is correct. Bill Maher was trying to make that point in the video to just such a bleeding heart liberal, but if he had had the equivalent of Never Left on his show he would have cut NL to pieces instead.

 

Christianity has a much bloodier history even after the New Testament was around. So what changed? Was / Is the New Testament wrong or were people using it wrong?

 

Few Germans were fanatical Nazis, but that didn't stop us from bombing Germany mercilessly. The "good Muslims" are no good if they don't eliminate the "extremists" themselves. Those who stand and watch are just as guilty as the active Nazislamis. We have to give them the motivation to say, "If we don't stop these terrorists ourselves, we're going to feel the retaliation too."

If a body organ has a cancerous tumor on it, we remove the whole organ, not just the tumor. Appeasement of the Muslim appeasers of their own kind will lead to terminal disease for the rest of us.

 

As I said, there's no point in this because Obama, Holder, the scumbag conglomeration, won't allow 'islam' to cross their lips. It can't be mentioned.

That ~10% of muslims are sympatico with jihad is clear. 150,000,000 need to be re-educated. That means decimating them to get their attention. Nothing else works. Bush had it half right. Kick their ass. He failed to kick it again. Then again. Nothing else will convey the message. Yemen and Somalia should be smoking craters. The Saudis need to be disciplined.

Or we can just accept random violence, cowering in fear, waiting in lines to board an airliner or bus or train or sporting event or ....

 

Wrong analogy.

Islamic clerics and leaders incite people to do those things, in the name of islam. It is an ideological issue, not one dealing with an inanimate object.

 

But people make those decisions based on some idea...they generally have a reason, regardless of how twisted, wrong, mean, hateful, or in cases of really twisted people, how fun it is. In fact, I'll go on to say no human being does anything without a reason for doing it, even if you do nothing, you do it for a reason.

The difference here is that you have leaders of the religion inciting these people to do it based on the religion.

 

If you slaughter millions of jihadi supporters without proving your case to the Muslim world, you will end up with tens of millions of jihadi supporters. If you then slaughter tens of millions of jihadi supporters, you will end up with hundreds of millions of jihadi supporters. If you slaughter hundreds of millions of jihadi supporters, every Muslim in the world will be your enemy.

As for accepting random violence, you should be more worried you'll be killed by a drunk driver when you get into your car than you should be of some jihadi getting you. Yes, there is definitely a security threat but why you woul want to heighten it by taking your approach is not understandable.

Put it in terms of Americans. If Jihadis kill a million Americans (WMD of some sort), will this make the rest of us give in and tell them they can have what they want, or will it convert millions of "I don't care" citizens into confirmed Islamophobe calling for tens of millions of Muslim dead? If it wouldn't work on us, why do you believe it would work on the Muslims?

 

So we die at their hand whenever they choose to kill us. Nice.

It was simple after all.

 

I know you got my point, so why play dumb? Of course, you do seem to be good at it ...

Seriously, how about trying to discredit the Islamofascist movement and encouraging them to discredit themselves, while limiting the damage they do to others? Allowing them to recruit lots of followers is a self-defeating tactic for the USA to pursue. Yes, we could probably knock them back on their heels for a few years if we killed enough Al-Qaeda types, but the next wave would make the current situation look like a nice sun vacation in the Caribbean.

 

What % of clerics do this? Because if Islam is the problem here, it's doing a pretty ineffective job, in that there are some 1.7Bn muslims on the planet, and less than 50 have been involved in terrorism in the West - that's a shocking statistic, mohammed would be turning in his grave! They really need to up their game here!

 

It still doesn't justify blaming islam.

If I apply your logic to Abu Graib, I'd say the soldiers tortured people because of American capitalism, therefore American capitalism is wrong.

 

They are wrong to not acknowledge that Islam is our enemy. The internet is releat with examples of powerful and influential Imams proclaiming war and death to western nations, and there is not one reason to not take them seriously. So, I do take them seriously, and is a fatal mistake not to.

 

I don’t think anybody here is saying Christianity never did anything wrong. I think the inquisition was just as bad and as wrong as Islam. But things have changed. Christianity had a Reformation. Things have improved since, even if they are not perfect. Even some of the recent popes, like John Paul II, have admitted that the inquisition was wrong and asked forgiveness for it. In America, Protestants have asked forgiveness for the support of slavery in the 19th century by some denominations. When is the last time you heard a Muslim leader ask forgiveness for centuries of bloodshed and forcing other peoples to convert to Islam? Or ask forgiveness for the terrorist attacks from 9/11?

The truth is, Islam was always like this, throughout its entire history. And instead of asking them to admit their mistakes and to reform their religion, politically correct liberals do the opposite. They find excuses for Muslim terrorists and for their religion. “It’s because the US supports Israel”, “It’s because we take their oil” and all that dumb propaganda.

The liberals defend a religion which they don’t even know almost anything about. They don’t know that the Quran or Koran, teaches Muslims to “take not the Christian and the Jew for a friend”. So much for multiculturalism and tolerance in Islam.

If you really care about Muslims, then tell them to rethink the way they see God. If that doesn’t change, then nothing will ever improve. They don’t even consider the possibility that maybe God is not like they imagine Him. Maybe He’s more like Jesus Christ made Him known.

“He who hates me, hates my Father also”. Jesus said, John 15:23

“If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed” John 8:36

 

It's in the nature of the people who converted to Islam. Because the people in Spain, Greece, and India were civilized, they refused to convert to the religion of their savage conquerors. Same goes for the Jews stuck in Islamic territories.

The people whose ancestors were pushed into the desert, the jungle, and the mountains as criminal fugitives were this way thousands of years before Islam offered them a religious excuse for being what they naturally were. Islam only helped organize them into massive criminal mobs.

It is significant that the Mongols, who were the worst people ever to terrorize evolved humans, converted to Islam. One of the Boston Dogmeat from Dagestan is named after Tamerlane, who made Hitler look like Mother Teresa.

 

Because of the appeasers and Greedhead collaborators who tell us what are acceptable viewpoints, it already has worked on us. The first jihadist attack was the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973. We did not retaliate. After 9/11, the Chickenhawk-in-Chief bypassed bin Laden, who was a sitting duck at Tora Bora, and settled for a cheap and showy victory over the Taliban. Then he went off to Iraq, who was really an enemy of our chief enemy, Saudi Arabia. "I don't care citizens" re-elected him for such treason.

 

Yeah, I'm sorry, but embargoes aren't attacks.

 

You're sorry all right. OPEC price-gouging has caused more damage to non-Muslims than bin Laden's most world-conquering dreams. The booty from this economic terrorism also financed the madrasas that created terrorist groups. But go ahead, continue to listen to Big Oil propaganda. Those collaborators have made a lot of money piggybacking off OPEC price-gouging, so I guess that makes them more attentive to foreign policy. We have the best political ideas money can buy. Money talks. Apparently, that's all you listen to.

Common sense would also tell you that the Arabs are financing a lot of the appeasement propaganda we here. They'd be stupid not to, and they're not that stupid. Or at least they can hire smart people to tell them what to do, while the powerless American people can't. We have to get all our ideas from collaborators and natural weaklings, who will abet OPEC-financed terrorism without even making any money off it.

 

Did it kill anybody?

Lol, "economic terrorism"? In what way was it "economic terrorism"? Was its goal to create fear? No. Was it violent? No. Are all embargoes terrorism or only embargoes done by countries with a Muslim majority?