<< FLY ON ~ MAIN ~ ETERNAL CHANGELESS AL >>
SCREW THEM IF THEY CAN’T TAKE A JOKE
The Boston Herald’s Jules Crittenden argues against agitation:
We are not dealing with stable, civil societies. We are not dealing with modern democracies forged by centuries of intellectual debate and violent struggle to establish individual rights. Islam’s period of progressive thought — isolated to a few centers of learning — ended about 800 years ago. What we are dealing with is a stunted society, still operating on a 14th-century paradigm. And when you start making Mohammad jokes, you poke a stick into that. This does not advance anyone’s understanding of our differences, nor in anyway does it help resolve our problems. It just gets them riled, and gives them another excuse.
It would also rile them to point out Islam’s period of progressive thought ended about 800 years ago. A fatwa on you, Crittenden! In fact, what doesn’t rile them? “Riled” is extreme Islam’s default setting, and the first three optional settings. Which is why tactical mockery may be a useful device. If you merely seek to “understand differences”, you’re committing to a polite form of the status quo; two opposing societies divided by centuries. But if you seek to take stunted 14th century paradigms off the table, mock away, using all that helpfully-supplied righteous riledness as a platform. Consider it a 21st century response. I’m more inclined to Christopher Orlet’s view:
There will be those who wish the Pope had gone further. Count me among them. Rather than relying on some emperor of seven centuries past, I wish Benedict had said that holy war was an oxymoron like “tax return.” I wish he’d reminded Muslims that this is the 21st, not the 7th century, that the Age of Reason began three centuries ago, and that the days of vilifying Jews and seeking their extermination should be ended.
UPDATE. A thoughtful reply from Jules (who, with his Australian connections and all, should never be quickly dismissed).
UPDATE II. Sydney Archbishop Big George Pell:
“The violent reactions in many parts of the Islamic world justified one of Pope Benedict’s main fears,” Cardinal Pell said in a statement.
“They showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence.
“Our major priority must be to maintain peace and harmony within the Australian community, but no lasting achievements can be grounded in fantasies and evasions.”
And further evidence of that Islam/violence link:
Al-Qaeda in Iraq has said in response to remarks by Pope Benedict XVI linking Islam with violence that it will wage jihad until the West is defeated, in a statement posted on the Internet today.
UPDATE. Further from Jules:
The pope blinked.
He picked a fight with Islam. Then he gave Islam a victory.
The exciting exchange of leaden courtesies continues in comments.
And that’s because pache, the West probably learnt it from the <a href =“http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB115577737987837890-lMyQjAxMDE2NTE1NzcxNzc3Wj.html”>Jews and Christians</a>. Our God invented the term.
Perhaps “Irony” should be on the citizenship test. Or just: must have a sense of humour.
I agree with Orlet that more needs to be said. And I regret that the Pope made any “sorry” references afterwards at all. Sorry for what he said, no; sorry for how it was received, yes. That’s all very well but the point is the Pope has now been seen to have apologised on some level for the criminal violence, idiocy and obscurantism of his Muslim detractors. Many of them will now alternate between demanding another apology and claiming - a la Hezbollah - that they “won”. What good could have come from the episode - you know, Western leaders and Christian denominational heavies stepping up to say enough is enough - has probably been lost. And, more worrying, having been shown that they will be given the full RoP treatment if they speak out, most Christian pastors will now be more inclined than usual to counsel fanciful “dialogue” and bogus “mutual understanding”. Plain-speaking and truth-telling - forget it.
“But RebeccaH ~ Catholics had the Inquisition!!”
Posted by tree hugging sister on 2006 09 18 at 01:09 PM • permalinkThanks for the post, as always, Tim. I understand everyone’s frustrations with our adversary’s 14th century mindset. But looking at how this debate is developing across the blogosphere, it surprises me that so many the people I usually agree with allow themselves to be swept away by emotion and have a hard time telling the difference between the right to free speech and its responsible exercise.
I do not advocate a dialogue with extremist Islam or even particularly give a damn about the advancement of understanding at any level, except on the following terms. I advocate killing extremist Muslims, without mercy, which I believe will greatly faciliate understanding. Our follow-on benevolence and generosity I think has also had a great effect, which is why our terrorist enemy has turned on its own people.
The advancement of religious understanding was the pope’s idea, which he thought could be improved by resurrecting some 14th-century Byzantine’s Mohammad slurs. I don’t think it helps for non-combatants in positions to responsibility to provide the extremists with recruiting tools and push the moderates into their camp.
This is why the US military schools its people in how to avoid insulting the locals. Rule No. 1 when operating overseas. Steer clear of the religion. The British knew this, and are remembered and respected as the more enlightened and successful of the imperialists.
This is why, after some idiotic Danish newspaper editors decided it would be fun to stage a Mohammad-bashing free-speech exercise, President Bush came out and denounced it.
Critizing the Arab media, society and political leaders for the bile they regularly spew, for enabling extremism, and for allowing their religion to be hijacked is another matter. This is why I have done that repeatedly, as have various political leaders, on up to President Bush.
I’d add that I am disappointed the pope has handed the extremists a propaganda victory with his expression of regret. Apparently having stirred up the nest, and seeing that his people in the field are paying for it, he can’t hang with it. That “infallibility” issue may need to be revisited.
Looking forward to the discussion. Have at it, all.
Posted by crittenden on 2006 09 18 at 01:10 PM • permalinkThe pope didn’t say he was sorry for what he said, CL. He said he was sorry his words are being misunderstood and misused. This is a “I’m disappointed in you” sorry, not an “oh please forgive me for hurting your feely-weelings” sorry. Of course, no one can tell the difference these days, and Benedict might as well told the Muslims to get bent.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 18 at 01:16 PM • permalinkI think we need to time the comments/issues/deeds that will inflame the Muslim community. Time them one after another with little or no time in between to create a really good rolling seeth throughout the Islamic world.
Perhaps if we can get them seething long enough, and hating hard enough they will (a) Learn that it doesn’t work (b) Burn down their neighborhoods and learn that it only hurts them (c) Wake up the fence-sitters that Islam is a religion of Peace, the Peace of submission or the grave.
Oh, and it would become somewhat comical after awhile as we try out what will freak them out this week.
This does not advance anyone’s understanding of our differences, nor in anyway does it help resolve our problems. It just gets them riled, and gives them another excuse.
Jules, I’m not sure I quite follow you. If you are arguing that the Pope showed bad timing in choosing this particular moment to highlight some critical remarks made by a Byzantine emperor to a Muslim hundreds of years ago, and further, that the Pope should have known that, in the current incendiary climate, his words would be monitored and used as propoganda by Muslim radicals, perhaps (and only perhaps) you are making a valid point, if you are also willing to argue, and demonstrate, that large sections of the Muslim world are plausibly on the verge of jettisoning their adherence to dogmatic religious violence in favor of, for example, pluralistic democracy (I believe you do touch on that subject in your essay). But the Pope is, notoriously, Catholic and Catholics do not accept the divine mission of Mohammed; ergo, the violent response by Muslims, in conjunction with their incessant demands that everyone, including non-believers, show “respect” for their prophet, would seem to imply the need for a self-imposed code of silence on . . . whom, exactly? Just the Pope, or on western political leaders, too? What about academics? And journalists? Is there some level of the social order below which Muslims have been content to tolerate the rumblings of the unbeliever?
I am not at all a proponent of wantonly insulting the beliefs and icons of another person’s religion - partly because it’s simply good manners to avoid wounding someone else’s amour-propre, but also because that tactic can result in unintended consequences of a very unpleasant sort. I do not believe that the Pope wantonly attacked Islam, nor, obviously, are you implying that he did. So if you are arguing tactics here, as opposed to strategy, as I say, perhaps you have a point.
Although there is much to be said - and many here who will eloquently say it - for the proposition that the collision with a resurgent Islam is inevitable, and that we are foolish to put off the day of reckoning, in the hope that nascent democracy will weaken the virus of radicalism. At least, I believe that is one of the points you are making: not that we should try to placate the maniacs, but that, given time, the maniacs will be supplanted by something more recognizably human and humane. I think people of goodwill can honestly disagree about the urgency of the threat, and the appropriate “prescription”. I sincerely hope you’re right in your prescription, but I confess that I am strongly in doubt.
Oh yeah, Crittenden, we’re all being “swept away by emotion.” I am as sick of that argument as of all the other ones. It’s always used against someone who wants the West to take a stronger stand against these fanatical retards, and in any case, where do you get the idea that the Pope’s speech is part of the problem? Have you even read it? It’s all about the need to use reason—something I should think you’d approve of. It’s your fellow media people who are manipulating the emotions of everyone involved with their cute “Pope Slams Islam” headlines. And those weren’t simplistic “medieval slurs” that Benedict quoted, but the frustrated statements of a ruler of Byzantium to one of his Persian opponents as he (the Byzantine ruler) was having his country destroyed under him by the same fanatical hordes we are facing today. But I guess he should have been less “emotional” about the way his people were being slaughtered or forcibly converted to Islam and his cities destroyed. Maybe he should have offered to hug the Persian. So the fact that the Pope dared to mention in public recorded historical events that put Islam in a less-than-wonderful light is seen as justification for violence because it’s “insulting.” Well boo-fucking-hoo.
I am sick of walking on eggshells around these people. If that makes me too “emotional” in your eyes, that’s too fucking bad.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 18 at 01:25 PM • permalinkEveryone who was once a kid knows how bullies behave.
Bullies go after the weak. Bullies don’t respect kids that fear them, or try to be nice to them. Trying to be nice to a bully is a show of weakness.
We all learned that when we were kids. What is so hard about remembering it now????
Posted by John Fembup on 2006 09 18 at 01:27 PM • permalinkQuite so, Andrea. And it is a big and telling difference. That’s not how it’s being reported in some quarters, lamentably.
Infallibility relates to doctrine, crittenden, not to forseeing what barbarians might do when a pope makes a passing reference to an historical episode during an academic colloquium.
The address, far from being a resurraction of “some 14th-century Byzantine’s Mohammad slurs” - as you preposterously argue - wasn’t actually about Islam at all.
Have you even read it? It’s an important question. There’s freedom of the press, you see, and what you might call its “responsible exercise”.
Can we not get too nasty with Jules?
No.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 18 at 02:09 PM • permalinkcrittenden: I am afraid we are simply going to have to diagree about this. While, like paco, I am not a proponent of ‘wantonly insulting the beliefs and icons of another person’s religion’, I still believe that the fault lies entirely with those who commit violence.
From your column:That is because we would like those moderate elements, those which are mainly interested in getting up each morning, opening the shop, and raising their children with hopes of a brighter future, to stay that way.
I am one of those element who are mainly interested in getting up each morning and going about my business, not of the Muslim variety, but of the Christian variety. Considering all the things that have been said about Christianity by leftoid, atheists, muslims etc. I could easily be offended. Nothing they say will turn me into a murderous bastard. If the Pope’s words make them not stay moderate, they weren’t that moderate to begin with.
Posted by Not My Problem on 2006 09 18 at 02:30 PM • permalinkCan someone please give me an example of progressive thought in islam where the author of it wasn’t murdered shortly thereafter and his books burned? I don’t think there ever was an extended period in islamic history where it was any different from now. All the claims to fame they tout for themselves are another culture’s invention that islam killed thru bloody “conversion.” They killed civil societies and then took the credit for their work. (And is there any better example of this tactic than crazy imams today saying America is islamic and American ideals are islamic but then turn around and say from the other side of their mouths that we are decadent and they want to wipe us out).
It seems to me that islam is the cause of progressive thought ceasing altogether in the ME. I’ve gone back and re-read the entire history of the rise and fall of the ottoman empire and islam in the ME and any time there was a “progressive” ruler, the islamic clerics assasinated him. In fact, in the entire 1400 year history, I think only about two islamic rulers died of natural causes. The others were either murdered or died from heart attacks caused by fright.
Bullies go after the weak. Bullies don’t respect kids that fear them, or try to be nice to them. Trying to be nice to a bully is a show of weakness.
We all learned that when we were kids. What is so hard about remembering it now????
That problem is that too many people don’t believe bullies exist in the adult world. They think it’s just a matter of “understanding”. If we all just understood each other, everything would be fine. That’s where misbegotten apologies come from.
People tried that same argument when the Soviet Union was at the height of its power and I didn’t believe it then, either. The problem wasn’t a lack of “understanding”, the problem was the political nature of the Soviet Union. They were the bullies of their day and the only thing they wanted to understand was how to grab more territory and bring more people under their control. The fact that some of our citizens refused to believe that fact shows this is not a new problem, but also proves it is one that can be overcome if enough of the rest of us stay the course.
It confirms for them everything they believe.
I should think, Crittenden, that it’s high time they worry about confirming everything we’ve come to believe about their Prophet and his followers. Who, after all, is at fault, the child who rules the roost by virtue of his relentless tantrums or the parents who permit it? And if you really want to pursue the difference between the right to free speech and its responsible exercise, you would do well to start among your own since it is they who so often fan these flames with their irresponsible, provocative reportage.
In my constant battle to rid my home of the wasp nests that are continually being built as appendages to it, I have found that it’s nigh on impossible to be rid of these dangerous pests without “stirring up” both the nest and those who lodge within. There simply is no dealing with radical, fascist Islamists without “stirring up” the Islamic nest. And that’s their rule of engagement, not ours. No matter how many times we insist that we’re not at war with Islam, only with those who seek to “hijack” it, that’s how many times we’re told that the war we’re waging is indeed a war on Islam itself. Well, if it must be so, then so be it.
And please clarify: When you say frivolous incitements, particularly from parties that by and large have chosen to sit on the sidelines of the cause of freedom we’ve been engaged in the past five years, do not help, are you referring to this Pope and the papacy in general?
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 09 18 at 03:10 PM • permalink#11 I am sick of walking on eggshells around these people. If that makes me too “emotional” in your eyes, that’s too fucking bad.—Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator
You know, in these times of political correctness and molly collying, I just love Andrea’s frank assessments.
But I agree with Dave S. Crittenden deserves a measure of respect and forebearance beyond what the usual commenters here warrant.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 18 at 03:11 PM • permalink“I do not advocate a dialogue with extremist Islam or even particularly give a damn about the advancement of understanding at any level, except on the following terms. I advocate killing extremist Muslims, without mercy, which I believe will greatly faciliate understanding.”
What if the problem with extremist Islam is not extremism, but Islam? Or is that such an unthinkable possibility that it’s %ist to suggest, even when every effort to eliminate extremists only makes moderate Muslims commit terrorism? When extremists of other religions can tolerate the insults and abuse that should, by your logic, incite them to fits of suicidally murderous outrage?
Has there even been a study into this, or would such a study be %ist too?
Posted by Tatterdemalian on 2006 09 18 at 03:18 PM • permalinkUnlike dictatorships, the West (i.e., the industrialised democracies of the world, ie the OECD I guess) can’t control what its denizens say, because of the core value of free speech. Therefore, we can’t “time” when offensive or inflamatory things get said. And just because something is offensive, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be said. The classic is example is that mixed marriages were once considered offensive.
I don’t agree with Jules about the Danish cartoons. If ‘piss christ’ and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are okay, then so too are the cartoons. But that’s a newspaper, not the Pope.
It was a senseless, inflammatory thing for the Pope to say. I’ve read lots of stuff about how he was taken out of context. My arse he was. He quoted approvingly:Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman
Violent jihad is given merely as an example of the evilness of the entire religion. Now it’s one thing for you or me or Tim to say it, but it’s another for the Pope to say it. By analogy, Tim recently quoted blog regular RebeccaH as saying
I’ve insulted Islam and Mohammed. Come and get me, jihadi trash.
That was funny. But if it was George Bush rather than RebeccaH that said it, it would not be very funny at all. And it’s not particularly funny coming from the Pope either. The Pope, like Bush or other political leaders, has a responsibility to be more measured in what he says, because his words are taken as representative of millions of people.Posted by daddy dave on 2006 09 18 at 03:29 PM • permalinkI love the way, when I log on here, it says SUBMIT ... and I always do. It’s like a religious experience.
#15 Paco…you’re correct, and thanks.
#16 Dave S…you’ve got it, spot on.
#18 Dave S…don’t worry about me. Unlike our 14th century brethren, I can handle irrelevant gratuitous insults. I won’t burn anything. Expressions of impotent rage, naughty language, no biggie. Seen, heard it all before.
The rest, pro and con, thank you for your thoughtful replies. Elaboration on brief above statement here:
Posted by crittenden on 2006 09 18 at 03:46 PM • permalinkAnd it’s not particularly funny coming from the Pope either.
Well it’s a good thing it’s not coming from the Pope, isn’t it?
Get this through your head: the fact that Muslims are insulted doesn’t mean any insult was intended or even given. There was no insult, except in their tiny, pointy little brainettes. These people are insulted by the fact that I can walk in public unaccompanied by a male relative while having my arms and head exposed. Please quit coddling them. Quit it. I mean it. It does no good, makes your allies (like me) angry—and we can hurt you—and only looks like more appeasement to the Muslim spazzes. Stop. It. Now.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 18 at 04:06 PM • permalinkI come for Tim Blair’s posts and the comments, but I stay for Andrea:
There was no insult, except in their tiny, pointy little brainettes.
Posted by Not My Problem on 2006 09 18 at 04:15 PM • permalinkThe Pope, like Bush or other political leaders, has a responsibility to be more measured in what he says, because his words are taken as representative of millions of people.
What if the “more measured” words are not actually representative of what those millions of people think? I largely agree with your point that Pope Benedict very likely approves of what he quoted, but your argument seems to be a non sequitur. Requiring our political leaders to be measured at all times is exactly what ultimately leads to “peace in our time”. Sometimes it’s necessary to tell your enemies that your don’t respect them or their beliefs. $Deity knows they’ve told us countless times that they don’t respect ours.
How on earth can people who appear otherwise intelligent deem it wrong or even irresponsible for the pope to point out the truth? What’s more, truth that has hundreds and hundreds of years of empirical evidence there to prove it?
Using your deluded logic it would be impolite, indeed insulting and therefore wrong to point out the inhumanity of the Nazi manifesto in let’s say 1939. Following the historical parallel, I wonder at what point you dipsticks would deem it acceptable to criticise the Nazis? In fact should we not criticise them even today for fear of upsetting their delicate sensibilities.
Wake up to yourselves you morons.
#23 I know exactly what you mean, Jenny. I can think of only one successful Islamic leader worthy of a more than a modicum of respect, and he was not an Arab but a Kurd.
At least he had the balls to stand up to and neutralise—at least while he lived—the al-Qaeda of his day, assemble an army and fight wars to their conclusion - i.e. a negotiated and lasting peace, provide for the free movement of people of all faiths to holy sites under his control, etc.
I’m not saying he was a perfect man, far from it, just that I wish the Islamic world had a leader like him today.
A leader that would openly declare his intentions, fight not from the shadows in ambuscade but on the open field of war, accept and honour terms in both victory and defeat.
In all other respects, I am in agreement with Andrea and others who tire of this phony war that is taking our best and bravest and putting them in harm’s way under limited rules of engagement.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 18 at 04:38 PM • permalink“And when you start making Mohammad jokes, you poke a stick into that. This does not advance anyone’s understanding of our differences, nor in any way does it help resolve our problems.”
I’m no longer interested in advancing anyone’s “understanding”
—if they haven’t got it by now, they are just late to the party.I am not against anything that exposes Islam for what it is. They have overplayed their hand and it’s starting to be clear, even to the Left, see Sam Harris’ op-ed today in the L A Times. Time to poke them again, where’s my stick…
Now they have shot dead an elderly nun, in a hospital. It’s sad that someone had to die, welcome to a 21st century infested by Islam.
Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2006 09 18 at 04:38 PM • permalinkEr, Baldman, just who are you talking to? Even I avoid general insults like “you morons.” Kindly modify your behavior here, if you aren’t capable of more focused wit. Or don’t comment susequent to pounding back a few cold ones. Whatever your problem is.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 18 at 04:49 PM • permalinkThe Muslims are acting this way because throwing violent fits over a percieved slight has WORKED to SILENCE people into submission. Consider it the tangible effect of what we conservatives have had happen to us for years: we stand up and point out the Emporer has no clothes and the screaming harpies of the Left attack until the conservative either tucks tail and closes his mouth, having learned his lesson in exercising his freedom of speech, or the conservative is overwhelmed by a hypocritical Left who will employ every nasty method they can think of in order to “teach” tolerance and proper behavior. All too often the Muslims have screeched in rage and so many people have cowed back down. I think a former poster has it right: we know what sets them off now, and we should KEEP doing it.
Would also like to say that I think the Pope is a VERY BRAVE man of God in that he has opened the dialogue that so many of our politicos have been too afraid to do BECAUSE of the Crusade accusation. Seems to me the Muslim world was JUST WAITING for something to be said by a leader. The Pope is doing his job. Will be a sign of things to come, though, if leaders in the West do not back the Pope up. Seems we are already seeing signs of that…
Oh, and if this keeps up, I will be sorry to not have a car in the Middle East, because the idea of parking one on a glass parking lot fascinates the hell out of me….
Posted by Sharon_Ferguson on 2006 09 18 at 04:54 PM • permalinkAll I’m saying is that Western leaders, including religious leaders, have to think strategically whenever they open their mouths. The Pope’s speech might have been poor strategy. That’s all. Although Archbishop George Pell doesn’t seem to think so.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 09 18 at 04:59 PM • permalinkCrittenden,
I have to admit, this concern of yours for “understanding our differences” does seem at odds with your recent complaint that we haven’t yet flattened several major Muslim cities, World War II style.Posted by daddy dave on 2006 09 18 at 05:00 PM • permalink#39, Nothing gets by you does it, Detective Paco, or did Sheila whisper the name in your ear between nibbles?
And #43, daddy dave, I must admit to being a bit puzzled by the apparent contradiction myself. Still, Mr. Crittenden is both a Journalist and a blog commenter—I suppose one has to use what is called in Modern Hebrew “Sabbath language” in one place and everday language in the other.
Jules?
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 18 at 05:12 PM • permalinkIt’s my - perhaps optimistic - belief that globalisation will deal with Islamofascism. The might of Allah doesn’t stand a chance against the power of the dollar, not once your average Muslim gets a real whiff. Slowly, slowly, the walls will come down. Hell, even the Net will play its part, possibly a very large part, offering up the capitalist world to these people in all its splendour. Maybe even outrageous blogs like this, believe it or not, will start provoking questions within (it’s mainly the clerics who are so blind to any criticism). We’ve all met normal, decent people from the Middle East. But at the moment they’re outnumbered - or intimidated - by the fanatics and feel it safer to shut up, but their numbers will grow, starting in the smaller migrant communities, spring up more and more eventually in the countries themselves. Sheiks and mullahs, knowing they can only be the voice if their followers permit it, will start to tone it down. And Islam, like Christianity before it, will evolve.
Or, they get hold of a nuke and in response we wipe every single one of them out within 24 hours.
See, it’s much nicer being an optimist.
So, we shouldn’t rock the boat to help the moderate Muslims. Has that worked over the past 30 years, Jules? Did the moderate Muslims you fondly recall ever take on the radicals or were they too afraid of speaking, even when living in Western nations, of the radicals? (Assuming one subscribes to the belief that “true” Islam is the religion of peace that’s been hijacked by radicals and been flown into the Twin Towers of worldwide religious harmony and beliefs in the first place.)
And now the Muslims he needlessly inflamed have been handed a victory.
Funny that gunpoint conversions don’t hand the radicals a propaganda victory, but the non-apology-apology does.
As far as reasoned debate goes, does that include calling David Warren and his religious supporters chicken hawks and making an ad hominem crack at the pope and WW2 Germany? (Some of which seems to have inspired you to make a second, same day, clarifying posting on the issue. Does that mean that I’ve been handed a victory?) Frankly, it sounds to me like you’ve got more of a bee in your bonnet about Christianity than Islam.
Regarding the pope issuing the apology after only belatedly realizing that Roman Catholic and other Christian aid workers are endangered by it, yeah, it’s not like anyone, especially a Muslim, has ever tried to kill a pope before. What a chicken hawk.
...does seem at odds with your recent complaint that we haven’t yet flattened several major Muslim cities, World War II style.
Finally, quoting something of which the moderates would approve.
/sarc [for the sarcasm impaired reader]Posted by andycanuck on 2006 09 18 at 05:31 PM • permalinkBless your ever lovin heart, daddy dave, but I think what you mean is that the Pope is no longer Politically Correct.
Funny this topic should come up - someone at Free Republic just posted this article discussing the metastisation (msp?) of Marxism. Their point isnt that its all about the Muslims, or just about the Left. Its about a fight thats been going on underneath the radar.
To quote :
We are now paying the price for this. Not only has Marxism survived, it is thriving and has in some ways grown stronger. Leftist ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse, their critics vilified and demonized. By hiding their intentions under labels such as “anti-racism” and “tolerance,” Leftists have achieved a degree of censorship of public discourse they could never have dreamt of had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations.
...
John Fonte thinks that the primary resistance to the advance of cultural Marxism in the USA comes from an opposing quarter he dubs “contemporary Tocquevillianism.” “Its representatives take Alexis de Tocqueville’s essentially empirical description of American exceptionalism and celebrate the traits of this exceptionalism as normative values to be embraced.” As Tocqueville noted in the 1830s, Americans today are “just as in Tocqueville’s time, are much more individualistic, religious, and patriotic than the people of any other comparably advanced nation.” “What was particularly exceptional for Tocqueville (and contemporary Tocquevillians) is the singular American path to modernity. Unlike other modernists, Americans combined strong religious and patriotic beliefs with dynamic, restless entrepreneurial energy that emphasized equality of individual opportunity and eschewed hierarchical and ascriptive group affiliations.”
Posted by Sharon_Ferguson on 2006 09 18 at 05:38 PM • permalink11 Andrea
I am sick of walking on eggshells around these people. If that makes me too “emotional” in your eyes, that’s too fucking bad.
I’m with Andrea on these bullshit people, (not that Andrea gives a damn about my being on her side) BUT enough is enough with these cultists killers. Don’t know if y’all in OZ have either of these, but I’m ready for Orkin® or Terminix®, for these roaches.
So as Andrea said If that makes me too “emotional” in your eyes, that’s
tootwo fucking bad.Mr. Crittenden has my utter contempt. He bends over backwards to defend these guys, to the extent that a cartoon is an insult. My country was conquered by this religion, thousands enslaved and murdered, but my sensibilities and “grievances” do not count. I really don´t give a f*ck whether their society is civil or stable, why should I? If he´s right then there should be no point in being civil towards them. Bitching about the crusades? well you won them, I´ll gladly join my christian friends for a rematch.
Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
I think that pretty much says it all. As far as I am concerned, all the screaming that the Muslims and Lefties are doing is their attempt to silence me. I will not be silent. Neither will the Truth. Let the Truth be told.
Posted by Sharon_Ferguson on 2006 09 18 at 05:56 PM • permalinkaddendum to my previous post.
You’re a good man, crittenden. If my comments, anger some, or all, (some of which have been deleted at LGF and I’m proud they have been, sorry Charles) I just don’t give a damn. As to this… This does not advance anyone’s understanding of our differences, nor in anyway does it help resolve our problems. It just gets them riled, and gives them another excuse. . I don’t give a damn.
These sick people, started 30 years or so ago with their bullshit, AGAIN and this time using Israel (actually 1948) as their excuse when it seems in reality all these roaches wanted, was another attempt at a caliphate.
Enough, is enough, turn them as Lot’s wife was, to a large pillar of salt.
Baldman, for the last time, I have no beef with your sentiments, merely wonder who you are directing them too. Most people here would seem to agree with you, so who are these “morons” you are talking to?
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 18 at 06:11 PM • permalinkThe only excuse they need is that we haven’t all converted yet. Saying we’re asking for it because somebody made fun of them is no different than the dummies who say we had 9/11 coming because [fill in the blank]. I reserve the right to mock Muslims, Christians, Eskimos, the mentally challenged, and anybody else I feel like. In the “Not Promoting Understanding” category, I don’t think that ranks quite as high as shooting a fucking nun in the back.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 09 18 at 06:20 PM • permalink#14.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again.
Hmmm. Maybe Python were onto something.Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 09 18 at 06:23 PM • permalinkWe value free speech, not so any one can say anything that may occur to them, but because individual human beings survive by the use of the mind, and that mind must be free to operate, and the individual free to act, if one is to survive. That is why it is a fundamental right, not a privilege arbitrarily granted or not by one group of individuals to another group of individuals. Because we understand this value, we put up with people who spew their hatred and other idiocies. Their words are not bullets and we are able to ignore them and survive. To say, however, that people ought to be careful about, or respectful of, ideas that are inimical to survival is to advocate respect for evil. To pretend otherwise is to commit suicide, which is exactly what is the West is doing every time the we attempt to accommodate Muslim feelings. I do not show respect to evil, not the ideas or the people who act on them. I do not grant them the grace of pretending to give a hearing to people who want me dead or enslaved, and who consistently work to accomplish their whims, or celebrate when other do so, or sit quietly and say that it has nothing to do with them. I neither attempt to make sense out of nonsense, nor grant the title of reason to base emotional outbursts.
I would like to ask who it is that has the respect within the Muslim community, any Muslim community, who is able to affect the changes we all require if we are to survive as free people? Who is listening that has the power to bring out the “moderates” within Islam, and why hasn’t this person shown himself before now? Where, in all the 30 some years now, is the reasonable mind we can appeal to who has the power to turn things around? Why, after five years of open warfare, have we only heard the voices of a lonely, threatened or murdered few within the religion who stands against the torture and murder of thousands? Rather, every offer is met with derision and more demands upon our lives and freedoms. Every attempt at peace has brought nothing but more death and destruction. And still the great majority of Islam remains quiet, and does so even in the face of the mass murder of their own. If they don’t care enough to stand up for their own lives, why should I shed the blood of my brothers on their behalf?
This appeasement is causing the death of our own people every day. It may seem like nothing when looked at in the general scheme of things, but it sure as hell means something to the individual doing the dying. If one sees that these deaths serve the purpose of preserving the lives and freedoms of the West, then it may be said that each man or woman dies in the name of his or her own freedom. That is the decision each one makes for himself. I think such a battle is necessary and worth my own death, because I choose not to be a fodder for someone else’s life. But one may not decide for others.
We cannot do anything about the murderous ways of Islam except to make sure that they understand the consequences of their use of force. If their own people will not do so, we have no other choice but to make sure the deaths are on their side, not ours. The time for chit-chat ended a long time ago; they have shown themselves to be deaf to appeals to reason. It is reason or the brute’s gun. If as brutes they choose the gun, let them see what a gun and reason will do.
They state explicitly that they value death. I value life. There is no compromise between life and death. They’ve made their choice. For those sitting on the fense, if they won’t make a choice, we have no other option but to make it for them. I regret the loss of true innocents on their side, but I won’t sacrifice the innocents on my side for them.
Al Qaeda in Iraq to Pope Benedict XVI: ‘You and the West Are Doomed’.
See ummm, these people mean exactly that.
And you see, ummmmm, in speaking to and of their threats, WE (in the West) DON’T!
When someone asked me, after I ranted on about what I would do to the “Sunni Triangle”...“Do you realize how large the “Sunni Triangle” IS?”
My answer WAS...“It probably looks quite small, from B-2 Bombers and it would be much smaller, after the B-2’s passed”.
Condolences to andy and wimpy and all Canadians of good will on the loss of their compatriots in Afghanistan.
Handing out books and pencils to happy, clamouring children they, along with many of the children were killed by a cowardly homicide attack by a Taliban coward on a bicycle.
Winning hearts and minds, only to see those young hearts and minds spattered on earthen walls and dusty streets.
Thank you, Canada, for your sacrifice in this struggle.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 18 at 07:10 PM • permalink“The Boston Herald’s Jules Crittenden argues against agitation:”
If telling the truth agitates people…tough.
Islam was a religion of violence from day one. Mohammed and the caliphs were the heads of the Muslim religion, and of the Muslim state, and they were the commanders-in-chief of the Muslim armies who fought incessantly and ended up conquering, first the Arabian peninsula, and then a goodly part of the Old World (by main force, not by moral suasion).
That’s pretty much the truth of the matter, isn’t it?
Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 09 18 at 07:13 PM • permalinkThe BBC has an excellent readers site, called Have Your Say.
The opinions of the BBC’s staff and readers are always poles apart.
On an article about the Pope’s speech, the BBC select a ‘representative’ comment from their readers,
Pope Benedict probably should self-criticise Christianity’s violent past before commenting on the other faith
John Lin, Illinois
However, the website allows you to see the most popular comments. The most popular comment on this thread is from a guy called Steve in Leeds.
oh look, muslims are up in arms. again.
recommended by 1547 people
Make that 1548 people
Posted by pommygranate on 2006 09 18 at 07:33 PM • permalinkMy comprimise solution to the Mo picture problem.
Perhaps depicting Mo as like this would be a bit more accurate? (not work friendly)
After all he likes to inflict suffering, control every aspect of your existance, and tollerates no dissent.
Hail Mo King of the gimps!
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 18 at 07:39 PM • permalink#60 That’s pretty much the truth of the matter, isn’t it?
I believe it is, and I said so, as is my right in a free society. No one has to agree, and anyone can laugh at me, but no one can tell me to be silent about what I see as a great evil.
The Pope doesn’t look down on Muslims. He quoted an old text to describe a current Islamic tactic (forcible conversion) as evil. Should he not speak what he believes is the truth? He’s not silent on other matters in the face of popular opinion, so why should he be silent on this?
I don’t agree with the Pope on a lot of things, but in this I think he was right. And if the Muslim world erupts in violence, then they have a definite, and very serious, problem that needs to be recognized and fixed. Being silent about it doesn’t do anything except ensure that it will never be dealt with.
I know this link on Pell has already been used but a quote is needed to show what both the Pope and Cardinal Pell are trying to say and do.
Wherever possible, dialogue and personal contacts are desirable among religious leaders, local communities, especially religious communities, and among young people.
Accurate information, accurate understandings and a respect for truth, even across differences, are the only long-term bases for fruitful exchanges.
Dialogue among friends does not preclude public questioning and public criticism, which should be constructive, not designed to make a situation worse by threatening peace or inciting hatred, for example…
Australians are entitled to an answer from me on controversial Catholic or Christian teachings. And we Australians are entitled to specific answers from our friends on aspects of Islamic teaching, for example on the Suras of the Sword 9:5 and 9:36 in the Koran. It is disappointing when such requests or criticisms are met only by accusations of ignorance or abuse, while the specific points are studiously avoided.Here we have two men speaking on intellectual and theological issues based on the premise of faith and reason. But what is the response? “Pope say bad thing, we threaten, burn and kill. He won’t try that again.” Sometimes it seems this discuss is only going in one direction.
Usual response to Pell’s reasoned words.
Nada Roudee, spokeswoman for the Islamic Council of NSW, says Cardinal Pell should look at world history.
“And consider that violence has been a universal phenomenon, it’s not confined to a particular faith,” she said.
Ms Roude says Cardinal Pell’s comments are unhelpful as Australia is trying to build a sound inter-faith dialogue.
So interfaith dialogue is unhelpful in interfaith dialogue? Is it just me or does this not make any sense?
Crittenden:
Here’s my thinking, you’re right that tactically it makes little sense to say anything that provokes these retards, but the war is strategic not tactical, and it’s here in the West, against our own leftist useful idiots, not in the East against the jihadi scum. The left-wing media have partially succeeded in whitewashing islam as a religion of peace and revolting public temper tantrums like the ones the Islamists threw over the cartoons and now the pope’s innocuous words are very hard for the lefties to spin. These incidents reveal islam to the western public in it’s full, ugly, moronic, shrieking reality.
Oh they’re angry? Dude, they’re always angry. Endless fabricated offence is the stock in trade of the islamist bully, everybody is forced to continuously apologize and kowtow to these ignorant bearded goatfuckers, and it’s never, never, never enough for them. It works only so long, then people lose patience and decide it’s easier to just kill them. All the Pope did was push the process along.
I’m not saying I don’t understand your point, I’m just saying you’ve missed the real enemy, western leftists. The islamists we could crush in a day if we really had to, and they mostly just murder other muslims anyway.
I, for one, am damn tired of Muslims being in a perpetual state of anger and indignation.
At the same time I realize that conservative Muslims have an enemy greater than America. It’s modernity and the changes it brings. It’s like Canute and his command to the ocean to cease sending waves. They cannot stop it. Men and women want to socialize. Women want to work and advance themselves professionally and socially, and as women with worth and dignity. Women want to decide how they should dress and what activities they should engage in. And people want the right to say and do as they see fit, not what the imans say they should do. It will happen.
All the fanatical Muslims can do is keep the people continually riled to perceived slights to the religion. But most people are smart and perceptive. If they can tell that the West makes a concerted effort to respect Islam and the people, they will be less inclined to followed the dictates of the “aggrieved ones”.
Maybe it is right to make an effort to avoid offending the sensitivities of Muslims. The question becomes how far that effort should go?
Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 18 at 09:01 PM • permalinkI haven’t seen anyone else say this yet.
To Crittenden and daddy dave particularly, I’d like to ask, what really is best for moderate Islam?
This is actually the closest I’ve seen so far of the occasional “Muslim” commenter around the conservative blogosphere managing to condemn violence rather than excuse it. Maybe the best thing is to stop acting as enablers. Maybe that’s the best thing for us *and* the best thing for whatever portion of Islam would like to see Al Qaida and others who commit violence disappear.
Because really, if we say we want moderate Islam to speak out against violent Islamists and radical movements such as the Taliban, yet we refuse to how can we expect any more of people who are Muslim? If the western press, which nearly worships free speech, refuses to portray Islamist violence as a reflection of the prophet with a cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, and if the Pope can’t even speak of the claimed support those violent Islamists find in the Koran… who can?
Certainly not Muslims.
The whole point of free speech, actually, is being free to say offensive things. If people can’t say offensive things, even when there is a good reason to point out an unpleasant truth, a vital truth, then not speaking isn’t a matter of having good manners and a point about that needs to be made.
The people defaming Muhammad are Muslim.
Not cartoonists and not the Pope. If *we* can’t say this true thing then no moderate Muslim possibly can.
ABC and Lateline seem to be getting all confused about the Pope’s lecture. For one thing on their transcript of last night’s Lateline Tony Jones has become Tony Morris.
As for the serious issues Jones is surprised the Pope could believe the supremacy of the Catholic Church. What would be more surprising is if he didn’t. He would be a strange Pope if he thought other religions were better.
His guests opinion on the Pope is a bit ignorant,
The presumption among most of the observers in the Vatican was that, “We elect an elderly cardinal and the Church will be in a safe pair of hands until the next time, until we’ve decided which way we want the Church to go,” presumably was what they were thinking. This has shown that the pair of hands are not that safe and that Joseph Ratzinger, now that he’s the Pope, can cause quite a lot of trouble. He is a serious idealogue, in a sense.
Why the hell (probably the wrong word) would the Cardinals elect a Pope they didn’t want to lead the Catholic Church? Is Benedict the rebound Pope from John Paul II and the next one will be the real thing?
As for the Pope being an idealogue in the sense of being an impractical idealist or an impractical idealist his theological debate on faith and reason disprove that. Or if Walston meant it in terms of, “adherent of a particular ideology,” then I think that actually goes with the job of being Pope.
It would have been nice to see Lateline question the Muslim reaction to the Pope’s lecture but then that is probably too much to ask for.
#43 Dave, #45 Floss, and others laboring under the misapprehsion that I am interested in “dialogue” and “understanding,” you need to actually read what I wrote. You’ll see this supposed concern for understanding is a gross fabrication, though undoubtedly well-intentioned, by one Blair, Tim.
see #7 Crittenden or the link at #29 Crittenden, and your faith will be restored.
Jeez ... the nonsense I have to deal with. I understand Dave, being from Maine, is lucky he can read at all, but you’re a scholar, Floss. I’m a little disappointed you weren’t tossing around 14th century Byzantine quotes yourself before B16 stepped in it.
And you, Andrea, need to deal with your rage problem. And get that potty mouth washed out with soap.
Posted by crittenden on 2006 09 18 at 09:19 PM • permalinkWhen George Bush described Islam as the “religion of peace” do you think he believed it? It doesn’t matter, really, because either way, it’s about an old tactic: divide and conquer. The intended message then and since is that politics, not religion, is the real problem. Hence the language: Islamic fascism. Democracy versus dictators. Etc.
What you don’t want is every Muslim in the world thinking that the West has begun a new crusade, and that they must therefore join the jihad. If that happens, Afghanistan and Iraq are lost right away. Other ambivalent nations will make up their minds in a way that is unfavorable to the West.
Personally, I think Islam is infected with pathologies of violence and oppression, but fatalistic thinking in the West about Islam will just lead to our enemies solidifying their position on their home turf. Keep calling it a religion of peace, and maybe one day it will be true. Words are malleable, and religions change. We don’t want the entire Muslim world believing in the Fifth Crusade. That is why the Pope, more than anyone, even more than Bush or Rice or Howard or Blair, needs to watch what he says.Posted by daddy dave on 2006 09 18 at 09:56 PM • permalinkApologies to Dave S., who I confused with Daddy Dave. You from Maine, too, Daddy Dave?
Posted by crittenden on 2006 09 18 at 10:07 PM • permalink“And when you start making Mohammad jokes…It just gets them riled, and gives them another excuse.”
“I understand Dave, being from Maine, is lucky he can read at all”
Let me get this straight…it’s o.k. to mock, and insult your own guys, but it’s not o.k. to make a Mohammad joke.
Get on the down the road, hoss.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 09 18 at 10:08 PM • permalinkAl-Qaeda in Iraq has said in response to remarks by Pope Benedict XVI linking Islam with violence that it will wage jihad until the West is defeated, in a statement posted on the Internet today.
In that case, there is nothing we can say or do, which will increase the risk they pose. So it’s time to stop trying to upset anyone.
This is my contribution to “The Age” blog titled “caredinal blunder:
“What a miserable lot you at The Age and Fairfax are!!!!
Cardinal Pell makes “.....a strident attempt to defend the Pope….”
Blog Heading “Cardinal Blunder”
Wow!!! you are so objective when it comes to the Catholic Church.
Where is your “boast” regarding Freedom of Speech!!!
Why do you hold it against an upholder of a verifiable truth rather than a against a bunch of “whingers” still stuck in the 7th Century? Why do you have any sympathy for anybody who reacts to a verbal reference to a verifiable claim of violence in his religion, with violence and increasing threats of distruction and death?. Does this not prove the point?. Oh no!. Its not his/her fault! Its the fault of the person who advances the verifiable truth.
The implication is clear. Keep your mouth shut,especially if you are Catholic, regardless of the truth lest you stir those barabarians!!. For are you not in fact saying that the Islamists and their co-religionists are barabarians and can only react with violence.? On the other hand if you at Fairfax and The Age are “afraid” to open your mouth you have accepted a cowardly Dhimmi position in the Muslim design and you have ipso facto surrendered your rights.
It is the Islamists and the Muslims that have to change and a Free People should not have to surrender its rights and freedom so as not to offend the violent bully who is incapaable of replying to an argument by argument but by violence. This is exactly one of the points the Pope was making, “..violence is against the will of a rational God”.
I have the utmost respect for Waleed Aly. He must be so embarrassed that regularly he has to try to defend the indefensible behavior of his co-religionists. However I would respectfully suggest that rather than finding subtle excuses for such behaviour, in this case blaming Benedict XVI for not being a politician, he should try to persuade the Sheiks, the Ayatollahs, the Muftis, the Imams and the other leaders of his Religion to teach their followers to react rationally to an argument and to stop stirring and urging them to violence especially at their Friday Prayers. It is very noticeable that the level of violence in Muslim societies increases every Friday after the prayers in the Mosque. He cannot expect a standard of behaviour from
one side but not the other unless he too accepts that the people on his side are incapable of behaving in a civilised and rational manner. ”Posted by LaVallette on 2006 09 18 at 10:10 PM • permalinkYou from Maine, too, Daddy Dave?
nope, I’m a looong way from Maine. I’m living down in the sunny South, but I’m originally from New South Wales.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 09 18 at 10:18 PM • permalinkSo daddy dave, the Pope needs to “watch what he says” because Muslims might react violently. But a softly-softly approach will yield better results - just like it did throughout the 1990s and 11 September 2001. Doesn’t sound like a plan.
Other ambivalent nations will make up their minds in a way that is unfavorable to the West.
And this would be different from pre-Benedictine times how exactly?
#78 Surls. You’re right. Being from Maine is like a religion, sort of. But I have more respect for people from Maine. I know they can take a little ribbing. Unlike some others I could mention.
Posted by crittenden on 2006 09 18 at 10:37 PM • permalinkAnd you, Andrea, need to deal with your rage problem. And get that potty mouth washed out with soap.
You know, crittenden, I don’t care what newspaper you write for, or how many journalistic awards you have on your wall, or what your deal is. You don’t impress me—especially with this your latest addition to the steaming pile of appeasement literature, and now this order to “mend my ways” or you’ll—what, big boy? I’ve banned people for less than you have done right now. As for what that makes you think of me, and what this will make anyone else who reads this blog thinks of me, maybe with an electron microscope you’ll be able to find where I give a good god damn.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 18 at 10:55 PM • permalink“No people in history have survived who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.” Dean Acheson
The radical Islamists WANT us to get to the point where we watch everything we say, careful not to “offend” the Muslims. They believe that should be the nature of our status if we do not submit to Islam. Christian minorities already live like that in Muslim dominated countries. They are constantly walking a fine line, careful of everything they do with regard to the expression of their relgious beliefs. The smallest misstep is used against them by the fundamentalists. Is this really how we want to live? We had better start showing some guts or we are doomed as a civilization.
When you insult people from Maine, they don’t blow things up and kill people. Well, outside of Stephen King novels.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 09 18 at 10:58 PM • permalinkIf I may pick a small fault in the logic.
You do not expect a rational decision from a brainwashed cult member. Whatever their ‘god’ says is right. That goes for branch davidians,mansons mob as well as Aum supreme truth.(for examples)
The “West” generaly allows people the freedom to pick and choose thier own thoughts, desires etc. This results in an overall ballanced society, plenty of cranks but the legal system is there to contain the worst excesses.
One of the fundimentals of a cult is constant reinforcement of fear and loathing of the “outsiders”. That and a good dose of monitoring each other, with brutal ostracism or violence is the foundation of control by the leaders.
Tithes, or duties in kind will be levied on the followers, and all actions sanctioned by the leaders will be a ticket to paradice or utopia. Some useful hangers on will be tollerated but never trusted.
Sex will be a critical tool for the manipulation and control of members, with the more “holy” getting greater access and many ‘taboos” to keep the plebs in line.
They will be terrified of the “outside” contaminating them, resisting change unless it strengthens their power or hold on their cult.
I could go on, most cults are small and harmless (beyond individual harm anyway), its when a vile and intollerant cult gains enough temporal power that it becomes a menace.Im out of time but i think most people here can tell a cult when they see it. Even if its called islam.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 18 at 11:00 PM • permalink“If I were Muslim I would be dying of embarrasment about now.”
#73 Bonmot
My observations tell me that embarrasment is not part of the Islamic repetoire. To be embarrased is to have lost face, dignity and honor, which MUST be redressed immediately.
The only way to repair this loss in Islam is by direct action, meaning violence—this is the source of “stoning” and blood feuds. Note that dialogue and understanding are not on the list of repair techniques.
We need a psychologist onsite to analyse the effect of cognative dissonance on primitive minds. I reckon it makes them crazy to be confronted with their own bullshit.
Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2006 09 18 at 11:07 PM • permalinkSounds like a fatwa coming on. You let this unpleasant person run your site, Tim? Old Derkaderkastani saying: try to avoid being more ill-mannered than your guests.
Posted by crittenden on 2006 09 18 at 11:08 PM • permalinkJules, when it comes to being ill-mannered I sit at your feet and just soak up the lessons.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 18 at 11:11 PM • permalinkSounds like a fatwa coming on. You let this unpleasant person run your site, Tim?
Now you’re just being a dick.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 09 18 at 11:15 PM • permalinkBy the way, people, go ahead and re-read my comment—the one whose immoderate language has hurt Jules so—and tell me if anything I said was over any line but the delicate pink one of propriety that for some reason we have decided draw for his sake.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 18 at 11:17 PM • permalinkWell, you know, D, it’s her fault he beat her up—she must have said or done something to set him off.
That was the traditional excuse people would come up with for domestic violence. Sound familiar? Nah—you’re right, totally different scenario. Nothing to see here, move along, go to your happy place lalala can’t hear you…
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 18 at 11:19 PM • permalinkHeh. Teach your children well, D!
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 18 at 11:21 PM • permalinkThis is completely off-message but I think it should be noted:
Writing in The Boston Globe Geoffrey Wheatcroft says:Once the Suez Canal opened in 1869 (after it had been dug at the cost of at least 100,000 Egyptian lives), it became the lifeline of the British Empire.
Nasty British! Except the Suez Canal was dug and originally owned by the French.Italics fixed. The Management.
Posted by Susan Norton on 2006 09 18 at 11:56 PM • permalinkSorry I got ther italics wrong in above.
Posted by Susan Norton on 2006 09 18 at 11:57 PM • permalinkCrittenden wrote:
Sounds like a fatwa coming on. You let this unpleasant person run your site, Tim? Old Derkaderkastani saying: try to avoid being more ill-mannered than your guests.
At some
Old Internet saying: Don’t get all pissy towards the moderator.
At this point, you’re acting like some trolls who try the “poor oppressed martyr” by acting like a complete ass towards people until whomever runs the blog gets tired of it and bans them. Sometime before the banning they claim they’ll be banned because the moderator can’t stand dissent, which pretty much means they’ll go elsewhere and wail about what an oppressive atmosphere at such-and-such site exists.
You going down that path, Jules?
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2006 09 19 at 12:10 AM • permalinkAndrea,
crittenden makes it very clear in both articles, that he is not advocating appeasement. For example,I don’t believe in kowtowing to Muslim sensitivities.I don’t care why they hate us… I don’t believe the response to Islamic terrorism should be anything less than vigorous and merciless military action.
Nobody is advocating appeasement. At least, I’m not, and I don’t think Crittenden is. But there’s a propaganda war going on, and last time I checked, we’re losing. The Israel-Hezbollah war is a good example of how badly. Did the Pope help in the propaganda war, or did he score an own goal? That’s the question.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 09 19 at 12:25 AM • permalinkKeeping away from the flaming upstairs, I’d like to draw your collective attention to an interesting observation on Benedict xvi and Islam: the first year from a muslim perspective.
There is some good stuff in there, countered by the usual claims of right-wing oppression in Eurabia.
Worth a read.
Now, back to your regular program. I don’t think I need to weigh in since I’ve already had my rant for the present. No doubt I’ll have another one in the not too distant future.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 09 19 at 12:37 AM • permalinkwell, it’s a short post because one of my relatives passed away late afternoon, so i might not be able to post as the funeral is in the country-out back land.
Our death is our wedding with eternity.
What is the secret? “God is One.”
The sunlight splits when entering the windows of the house.
This multiplicity exists in the cluster of grapes;
It is not in the juice made from the grapes.
For he who is living in the Light of God,
The death of the carnal soul is a blessing.
Regarding him, say neither bad nor good,
For he is gone beyond the good and the bad.
Fix your eyes on God and do not talk about what is invisible,
So that he may place another look in your eyes.
It is in the vision of the physical eyes
That no invisible or secret thing exists.
But when the eye is turned toward the Light of God
What thing could remain hidden under such a Light?
Although all lights emanate from the Divine Light
Don’t call all these lights “the Light of God”;
It is the eternal light which is the Light of God,
The ephemeral light is an attribute of the body and the flesh.
...Oh God who gives the grace of vision!
The bird of vision is flying towards You with the wings of desire.rumi.( one of the only good thinkers of islam- an artist/poet
Something more about a similar debate from Hot Air via Michelle Malkin:
http://tinyurl.com/okcq5Thanks for your sympathy about Canada’s Afghanistan losses, guys. And about Texas Bob, his wife must know about his fondness for this site, so if anything had happened, major or minor, I’d imagine she’d at least let Tim or Andrea know. At least, that’s what I hope.
I would comment on your language too, Andrea, but as I’ve just been watching back-to-back episodes of Deadwood, everything here seems pretty mild in comparison.
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 09 19 at 12:40 AM • permalink“Al-Qaeda in Iraq has said ... that it will wage jihad until the West is defeated, in a statement posted on the Internet today”
Er, when was the jihad originally going to stop until the Pope opened his big trap?
I’m with Crittenden on the stick poking. Very hard to persuade anyone if you start from the opposite view point. You’ve got to take them along slowly.
Jules, you make a good point that we shouldn’t deliberately taunt Muslims (that’s how I read “poking with a stick”, anywho). And you make a good point that the Pope blinked. He did, inasmuch as he sent the word “sorry” towards the Muslim world. I wish he had simply smiled and moved on.
But I don’t think that the Pope “poked” the Muslims with a stick. He offered reasonable criticism, far more reasonable (and rational!) than some of the criticism of the Catholic church (or Christianity in general, for that matter) that I’ve read on this very blog.
The response of the Muslim world, including their noted clerics, was disproportionate in the extreme. Indeed, it was immature. If children under my care behaved this way, they would have been punished for improper behavior (such as throwing a tantrum).
Now, I’ve read the responses of the regulars here, and your own comments. And I just can’t help but think that you are, in fact, appeasing, or at least enabling, this pathetic behavior.
A portion of the Islamic world claimed victim status because of the Pope’s comments, and you then blinked by cautioning against riling up this same segment.
Please bear in mind that I’ve had the same training that you mentioned here. I am fully aware that showing respect is a key element in working with other cultures (not just Muslim, BTW), and why. But that’s for operating in a combat zone. The Pope was not in a combat zone. He was giving a speech, for God’s sake!
But I’m reminded of one not-so-whimsical definition of multiculturalism: Multiculturalism is one culture’s tolerance of other cultures intolerance. That’s exactly what I’m seeing from you. I wonder, do you see it that way, or not?
Sooner or later, Western civilization has to face up the fact that we are in a fight for survival. I think that you realize that. It may come to all out war, although I hope not….I just won’t discount the possibility.
In the meantime, one key message that the Muslim world (not to mention the large segment of Western civilization that we call “lefties”) need to understand is: You are responsible for your own actions, including the consequences from those actions.
And, IMHO, this message needs to start in the media. You are a voice of reason in a howling wilderness of insanity. Learn the difference between valid and constructive criticism from deliberate taunting. Maybe your peers will get the message.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 19 at 12:47 AM • permalink“The pope’s people insist that his offending Mohammad quote really has to be viewed in context, and he is very sorry that it was misunderstood.” (via a certain columnist)
From what I understood from the Pope’s discussion is that the above is correct: the critics focused on a quote used to start the discussion on page 1 and ignored the following seven pages of his argument. More important, his regrets for their misunderstandings should be construed as regret that they were unable to understand his discussion. He has laid out opening points for debate with Islamic theologians or philosophers, if there are any. And he has also laid out the basis for continuing any ecumenism with Islam. The Pope is being hard-nosed about this, and our politicians would do well to follow suit; except for Prime Minister Howard who has been ahead of the Pope.
“Frivolous incitements, particularly from parties that by and large have chosen to sit on the sidelines of the cause of freedom we’ve been engaged in the past five years, do not help.” (same well-known columnist)
So much for the spirit of Gen Patton.
Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2006 09 19 at 12:54 AM • permalinkTo think we have to spend more than 2 minutes thinking about the Islamic barbarians. But: they are fueled by $$$ from their oil. So, they can afford airplane tickets to Boston, and even buy nukes. With no $$$, they could go back to their goats in the wadis, and kill the people at the next water hole whenever they get bored.
This whole thing is making me into a tree hugging environmentalist…because it IS all about oil.
Also, I have read Benedict’s address at Regensberg, and I find it difficult to follow, because it is very sophisticated. In fact, I am going to find a couple of friends and actually STUDY it. Benedict is one of the smartest, most learned theologians alive today.
And in the meantime, come the November elections, I would bet (given Bush and Co keep control of Congress), bad things for the Muzzies could happen out there in the desert sands. I sure hope so.
“#78 Surls. You’re right.”
I just don’t get why you’re so quick to sling deliberate insults here, and at the same time so worried about offending Muslims by telling the truth.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 09 19 at 01:42 AM • permalinki THINK THAT WHEN WE DEAL WITH ANY STATEMENTS FROM THE POPE OR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN GENERAL IT MAY BE WISE TO REMEMBER THAT THEY HAVE BEEN AROUND LONGER THAN JULES OR HIS PUBLICATION SO TO USE A WORD SUCH AS BLINK TO ANYTHING THE POPE SAYS ONLY SHOWS HOW LONG YOU HAVE BEEN ON EARTH.
ANY ACT OF VIOLENCE BY MUSLIMS FROM NOW ON WILL ONLY RETRACE TO THE POPE WORDS!Chester, Treacher: I’m sure you think you’re being chivalrous and all, but with all that appeasement happening she’s not going to respect you…
Not into religion but reading Pell’s clear and articulate summation I couldn’t help noticing the difference between - in this case - Catholic leaders and Muslim leaders. The issue really does seem to be about reason and the absolute absence of it in some quarters.
Conrad: I too thought it was a satirical illustration of that mindset. Subsequent posts indicate otherwise.
#105 “Did the Pope help in the propaganda war, or did he score an own goal? That’s the question.”
Saying nice things hasn’t helped yet. Without evidence that the egg-shell walking is doing any good at all, why insist that it must be the best option?
Does legitimizing the violent reaction by issuing apologies do *anyone* any good? How can it? In any other situation at all, would legitimizing the anger and outrage by *agreeing* that there is cause for it be advisable?
Peaceful or violent it seems that Islam cares more about pretense than about what is true. The Philippines was like that too, when I was there. There were no prostitutes. Did you know that? None. There was this little fiction that had to be played out where a girl’s employer was paid for the work she’d miss when she went short-time with a GI. So everyone could pretend that there was no prostitution. I don’t know why. Seems sort of stupid to me, but the little make-believe game had to be played.
Peaceful or not, the Muslims committing violence, threatening violence, warning against provoking violence… those insisting on strict religious law, no music on the radio, theocracies that never existed in history… they’re doing it for God just like Fred Phelps is spewing his hatred for God.
Does pretending this isn’t so make it go away?
Pretending there weren’t prostitutes around Clark or Subic Bay must have made someone feel better about themself or their country, but it did absolutely nothing for those girls.
Muslims, not the Pope, are giving Islam a bad name. Enabling the denial of that reality does no one a favor. No one at all.
Even if it makes them feel good.
OMG. I just wasted an hour and more carefully composing a response to Jules and it is lost on preview.
What a waste…never again will I attempt to justify my remarks out of respect. I will admit when I am wrong, I will supply additional sources, comments, etc.—but NO MORE JUSTIFICATION.
I could have been playing dolls with my daughter, who is wondering why I am turning red in the face.
Its just not worth it.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 19 at 02:49 AM • permalink(btw, been to Maine and Massoftwoshits—I’ll take Maine anyday)
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 19 at 02:53 AM • permalinkOne aspect of the cult of cowardice aka PC speak, that is most often missed when attempting to address hard issues is the concept of “moderate”.
There are 4 sorts of “moderate”.
1. Doesn’t give a shit about the issue so doesn’t take a stand.
2. Doesn’t understand the issue so doesn’t take a stand.
3. Believes that taking any stand on any issue is wrong.
4. Using the title of “moderate” to hide alliance to an enemy.There is no viable middle in a fight. There are no “moderate muslims”. That is a figment of the same imagination that says open and overt acts of treason during a time of war is a matter of free speech or “legitimate dissent”.
The area between the opposing lines in a fight is called “no man’s land”. That is not some writers conceit or some poetic wordage. It is truly a place where no man can survive.
All muslims who are not openly and aggressively fighting against the jihadi in this war are either overtly or quietly supporting those same jihadi. There is no moderate muslim. All those refusing to stand against, are either standing or sitting down for the murderers.
This is as clear an example of “either us or them” as has ever existed in recorded human history.
We want, ... no…we NEED the enemy riled up, off his feed, on the march and throwing himself against our spears. We do NOT need or want our enemy to be allowed to “go to ground” to sit, wait for events to favor him, hold back until they have the weaponry to bring down our city walls and slaughter our people.
We do NOT reason with the unreasonable!
We do NOT rationalize with the irrational!
We do NOT attempt to treat honorably with the dishonorable!
We do NOT grant quarter or give mercy to the merciless!We do not do those things if we wish to survive as a people.
There are only 2 options.
1. We destroy them
2. They destroy us.Crittendon you say we should use merciless force, (good word that merciless by the way),so how is that going to get all these moderates on side?, what mental process will it put in motion that will win them to the cause of sweet reason?, So called moderate muslims are in the same position as the good Germans of 70 years ago, what good exactly did they do?, the truth is both good Germans and moderate muslims have no influence whatsoever, my opinion is if they cant be a help to us we shouldnt allow them to be a hinderance, the biggest favor we did the germans, japanese, italians was to ruthlessly take down their fascist rulers and kill them, we did it then and we should do it know, and not fall for the phoney good cop bad cop double act of islam, the so called moderates are only a shield for the killers and head choppers, useful only in so far as they can blunt any muscular western response,in my opinion there is more chance of an islamic civil war than a renaissance.
Nobody is advocating appeasement. At least, I’m not, and I don’t think Crittenden is.
Well, in that case his article basically amounts to the usual blah-blah “don’t do X, but I have no idea what else to do, I’m just criticizing because I can” that passes as journalism these days. Though, I guess the “what else to do” was in the “go raze some Muslim cities” article…yeah, perhaps that’s what our politicians and other assorted leaders ought to talk about.
Still, I’m even more disappointed with Jules’ borderline trolling here than with the article.
Pope quotes a mediaeval scholar who says that Islam is a violent religion - Islamists react with violence. Erm, that’s what I’d call an own goal.
The more I think about it, the more I think that the bhurka is the root of all evil within the death cult that is Islamo-fascism. How any woman with a brain between her ears can think this religion has anything to offer is beyond me. Women have to wear bhurkas, otherwise they would be responsible for men behaving badly, eg rapes etc. Let’s take this a step further - these men are not expected to develop any impulse control; instead their violent and anti-social reactions to an ankle or a sight of female hair are blamed on someone else. Now these men have been brought up believing that their bad behaviour is someone else’s fault - therefore, the stupid behaviour we see whenever anyone looks sideways at a Muslim. Whoever first said they were children throwing a tantrum is right. They should be spanked, preferably with high-explosive.
#104 Damn, this blue-on-blue shooting is depressing.
Personally, I love you all. Hugs!—Dave S.
I agree with this. Well except the love and hugs shit. Sounds too liberalish.
Jules, you’re a very bright guy and a welcome commenter to this blog. But take it from me, it’s best to stay clear of The Administrator.
(rubs left buttock where sting from Big Bertha lingers, received unjustly after posting a lengthly Monty Python quote chocked full of hypens)
Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 19 at 06:09 AM • permalink#122
OMG. I just wasted an hour and more carefully composing a response to Jules and it is lost on preview.
I too have been the victim of this truly vicious and tragic injustice at this place, MentalFloss. And elsewhere. I feel your pain. I put it down to antisemitism.
I have spent hours trying to find the lost work. Not for me, you understand, but for the benefit of all humankind. My understanding of the laws of physics suggests it must be somewhere. Just in a different form is all.
I have observed that this brutal theft (what else can you call it?) is more likely to occur the longer you spend writing the piece. Which of course is precisely the sort of cruelty you’d expect.
An answer? Don’t despair but take the rest of the evening off. Then next time as a precaution - highlight and copy before post or preview. That foils the bastards. FightDemBack! Or whatever.
An interesting ABC (American one) piece highlighted that it’s as much a battle of Citizen vs Tribesman as religious, or even political issues.
The problem is that central to Middle Eastern thinking is this idea of themselves as part of a tribe, and any outsider is an alien worthy only of contempt. The Greek/Roman thinking that the West has inherited is based on the idea that citizens earn the right to be part of the state, but can come from any background, creed or race.
The bottom line is this - it does not matter what anyone says, or who says it - the psycho ragheads will turn it all into an excuse to blow things up and kill, because they just like blowing things up and killing people. They get off on it. It’s not rocket science - these poor excuse for people want to live in a state of perpetual warfare.
#132 That whole tribalism issue is what keeps most of Africa, the middle east and even aborigines and American Indians poor and backward…
It is only in those cultures who have acknowledged that while there are differences between people, cooperation and trust will get you further than dividing all the spoils and power between just a few family members and trusted confidences, whilst everyone else is considered an outsider…
Perochialism and partiotism for and between states and countries is fine if not taken too far, but when nepotism within a select group of limited talent is practiced, while everyone else is an enemy or suspect the results speak for themselves….
No country where tribalism has been practiced extensively has ever amounted to much because it divides people rather than brings them together, and the history of advancement has been that of people working together….
Jules, you’re a very bright guy and a welcome commenter to this blog. But take it from me, it’s best to stay clear of The Administrator.
But then aren’t you just appeasing rage and encouraging more threats?
I can understand why one wouldn’t want to “poke a stick into that” but, on the other hand, one gets “sick of walking on egg shells”.
#130 Wronwright, thanks, but I really can’t add to my steaming pile of appeasement or it might topple (ref: Everything Crittenden’s written in the past week). Floss, sorry you lost that. I love the smell of Biblical scholarship in the morning ... In complete agreement re MassiveTwoShits and State of Mange, by the way, though I tend more to New Hampster.
Posted by crittenden on 2006 09 19 at 09:24 AM • permalink#7 Crittenden
I don’t think it helps for non-combatants in positions to responsibility to provide the extremists with recruiting tools and push the moderates into their camp.
This is why the US military schools its people in how to avoid insulting the locals. Rule No. 1 when operating overseas. Steer clear of the religion. The British knew this, and are remembered and respected as the more enlightened and successful of the imperialists.
This is why, after some idiotic Danish newspaper editors decided it would be fun to stage a Mohammad-bashing free-speech exercise, President Bush came out and denounced it.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I think the operative word above is “overseas”. As in “Rule No. 1 when operating overseas. Steer clear of the religion.”
Now I’m a strong believer in the principle of “Your house, your rules. My house, my rules.” If in a muslim country, I would have absolutely no problem deferring to local sensibilities.
But the problem with many in the muslim world is that their principle appears to be “Every square inch of Planet Earth, my rules.”
Sorry muslims, but it ain’t gonna happen.
If muslims have got a problem with what Danish journalists publish in Danish in a Danish newspaper to a Danish audience, then they can (as Treacher would put it) “suck it”.
If they’ve got a problem with what a German-born Catholic says in a German university to German students, then again, they can suck it.
Pope or not, he is on his home turf, in his ‘own house’, and as such, he can play by the local rules, and exercise local freedoms.
Sorry, dear muslim world, but your opinions, your emotions, your outrage (real and/or staged) on what “we” do in “our house” is utterly, totally, completely unimportant to me, and I suspect most Westerners.
So, kindly, suck it.
#122 MentalFloss.
Sometimes if you hit “back”, you can go back to the page with your composed message still in the text-box. It doesn’t work all the time, but sometimes it does.
I’ve also noticed it is more likely to happen if a window has been open a long time before you “submit”.
Useful safeguard: Before you submit, copy+paste your comment into a .txt file (or an Outlook Express ‘compose email’ box - or basically anything you can write to). It takes 5 seconds and has saved my bacon more times than I care to remember.
Chester, Treacher: I’m sure you think you’re being chivalrous and all
No, I think the guy is being a jerk.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 09 19 at 10:42 AM • permalinkBefore you submit, copy+paste your comment into a .txt file (or an Outlook Express ‘compose email’ box - or basically anything you can write to)
You don’t even have to paste it (unless you’re woried about your whole ‘puter crashing). Just copy it. You can paste it into the new/now-blank reply box if and when your manifesto vanishes.
Sometimes if you hit “back”, you can go back to the page with your composed message still in the text-box. It doesn’t work all the time, but sometimes it does.
It helps to put your browser into offline mode before you hit the Back button, because it won’t try to reload the page from scratch, increasing the chance that the entered text is still there.
I’ve also noticed it is more likely to happen if a window has been open a long time before you “submit”.
FWIW, I can consistently “lose” comments if: I open a page to comment on, my internet connection drops while I’m writing the comment, I reconnect, and then click Submit.
Islam is a Christian heresy, the Arian heresy that maintained that God/Jesus did not die on the Cross, Jesus was fully human (but a SPECIAL human).
The whole Triune nature of God, which Benedict is talking about in his lecture, was much too difficult for Mohammed to understand.
So, on top of everything else, the Muslims are heretics!!!!
From an al-Reuters story today:
The head of Australia’s 5 million-strong Catholic church, Cardinal George Pell, said violent reaction “justified one of Pope Benedict’s main fears” about Islam.
Local Muslims called Pell’s comments “unhelpful”.
snickerchortlesnortsnort
Posted by tree hugging sister on 2006 09 19 at 02:25 PM • permalink#148 Local Muslims called Pell’s comments “unhelpful”.
I think the key problem here is local Muslims are unhelpful in total.
I call their unhelpfulness unhelpful.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 19 at 02:53 PM • permalinkInstapundit links to this comment that expresses a similar sentiment to crittenden’s. Uses the analogy “don’t poke the snake”. She copped plenty of flack too, and her conclusion is interesting.
It wouldn’t work for me though; growing up in Oz we learnt to pre-emptively deal with snakes by beating the bushes with a very long stick. The snake either pisses off or gets clobbered.
Jules, I look forward to and read your work regularly. So we disagree on some of the points raised in your latest.
Nu? We should agree on everything? How boring would that be?
By the way, thanks for the “scholar” bit—but, let’s face facts: I was a scholar—my last published monograph was in an obscure Canadian university quarterly about 22 years ago, on an even more obscure subject; the sources for which consisted mostly of photocopies of fragments of clay tablets and rubbings of stelae.
How does this qualify me to comment on current affairs with any greater aura of credibility than the many here, including yourself, who speak from their own experience with greater economy, brevity and wit than I?
I am just a dilettante with a few thousand books—a member of the “Fifth Estate” (a neologism? I’ll check later) of blog commenters, working too hard and too many hours/day in a field completely unrelated to my studies, trying to pay off a mortgage and keep various species of wolf from the door.
Yeah, I’ve read Ostrogosky. Big deal.
This post will eventually end up in the “Pairless-Sock Universe” just like the one I dumped on preview (thanks, by the way to all fellow sufferers of this phenomenon for the counselling—it really has helped.)
You work to a harsher standard, Jules, as a paid journalist. Good luck with that.
All the best,
MentalFloss
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 19 at 05:26 PM • permalinkOT,(slightly related).
If there was any doubt about the power women still hold over men, the worship of Andrea is proof. It’s got nothing to do with her role as moderator; it’s that she’s a woman with a sexy name. What, you think all those leather and bondage references are jokes? Hah, I can read between the lines, fellas…
... my last published monograph was in an obscure Canadian university quarterly about 22 years ago, on an even more obscure subject; the sources for which consisted mostly of photocopies of fragments of clay tablets and rubbings of stelae.
Hmmm. The missing tablets of the Epic of Gilgamesh went missing 22 years ago. Mentalfloss! You have a damn high overdue book fine.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 19 at 06:34 PM • permalinkMy comments used to go blankety blank fairly often. Then I figured out it only happened when I wrote a particularly nasty comment about my—excuse me, allow me to use quotation marks—“esteemed and helpful mentor and supervisor”, Richard McEnroe. I suspect he reviews my comments, leaving out those he disapproves of. Maybe Andrea has the same software.
I think I’ll test my theory.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 19 at 06:38 PM • permalinkTest #1: Andrea is a damn nice lady and we’re damn lucky to have her.
Yes. It posted.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 19 at 06:41 PM • permalinkTest #2: Andrea, you’re a she beast, jealous of my prodigious knowledge of humorous Monty Python quotes. You’re a nefarious theif who stole my Norman shield and my Zulu spear and when you’re back is turn, I intended to steal them back. With Big Bertha. Which I plan to use on you, once I position you over my knee. Hah! So there!
Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 19 at 06:45 PM • permalinkHmmmmm. Well, um. Hmmmm. Looks like my theory didn’t bear out after all. I think, um, maybe I wish I hadn’t tried to be so scientist-like, with that experiment. Scientific though it might have seemed. With noble goals. Of learning. And stuff.
I think I will go over and sit quietly in the corner for a while. If Andrea asks for me, please tell her I’m working on science stuff. For the betterment of humanity.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 19 at 06:53 PM • permalinkErm, Wron?
One of the minionettes just reported that the Mighty Mistress Andrea just ordered her skinning knife to be sharpened.
Something about a “Wronwright lampshade” going well with the Zulu Spear and Norman shield.
And lookie! We are running low on Lord Rove’s favourite crustacea, those extra large green trilobites. Perhaps RIGHT NOW would be a really good time for you to take the Tardis to the Permian to get some more?
And I am sure that the VRWC mind-control lasers need…<background of minions franticly riffling thru maintenance logs> um.. wait…. RECALIBRATING! Yes, definitely. And Howard the Enceladan is due for home leave on Enceladus. Oh, and the Martian global warmenator needs checking.
Get the hint?
MarkL
Chief Minion Manager of the VRWCDid your paper make you a cuneiformist or a noncuneiformist, MentalFloss?
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 09 19 at 07:29 PM • permalinkThis does not advance anyone’s understanding of our differences, nor in anyway does it help resolve our problems.
Sure it does. It disabuses more people of the silly notion that there are not vital and profound differences in play and graphically illustrates the futility of appealing to the reasoning capacity of adherents of the Religion of Pissiness. That rumbling noise was the sound of millions of PO’d Catholics waking up and striking the Appeasement At All Costs camp, which will do more to resolve the problem than a thousand UN resolutions.
To all those who think that there are certain lines that should not be crossed because it is just “poking them with a stick”, I have a question: where do you draw the line? who gets to draw it? What colour should the line be? OK that last one was a trick question, but should Christian churches stop offering to convert people to their religion because that would just be offensive?
“If church leaders are really interested in saving people, they would find much less offensive ways to do it,” said Ahmed Bedier, director of the Tampa chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “Religious leaders are adding fuel to the fire. It’s a shame.”
Ah, yes! CAIR, what would we do without them…
Posted by Not My Problem on 2006 09 19 at 10:58 PM • permalinkSmithovitch, couldn’t access the vid. Is it worksafe?
Also love your comment on snakes - so true, and so many people never consider that action.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 09 20 at 12:04 AM • permalink#163, andycanuck: No, but it did drive a wedge between my colleagues and myself.
Speaking of historical hoaxes (if we weren’t, we are now) I offer this (very) rough translation of an inordinately well preserved fragment found in the hills above the ancient city of Ur. It appears to be a record peculiar in its linguistically challenging mixture of person, tense and mood. The subject matter may hold a clue:
<snip>
Wronwright awoke with his customary headache and reached for a ramshorn of Brew. Elsewhere in the roundhouse others also roused and downed their first draft of the day.
Those who drank water got ill and died, although Wronwright often wondered if there was a better way to make it safe than fermenting Brew.
Those who drank Brew could be divided into three groups.
Firstly there were those who became intoxicated very quickly. They tended to die too, in a variety of ways. There were those, like Paco, who might take exception to the way a wild boar or some other dangerous carnivore looked at them and then make the decision to fight it. There were others, like El Cid, who might become convinced that they could fly if only they could jump from a high enough cliff. Potentially a terrible waste of life but great anecdotes for long drinking sessions.
The second and largest group, of which Wronwright was a member, retained enough sense to stay alive but spent their entire lives in an alcoholic haze.
The third group were virtually unaffected by the intoxicating properties of Brew but also tended to have a limited lifespan, often being put to death by the second group for being annoying, self-righteous smart-arses. MentalFloss was a case in point. He had been the sixth person during the previous millennium to independently invent the wheel. He had become very angry, however, when no one else cared and had unwisely pointed out that non-stop partying meant no significant technological, scientific or cultural advances had been made in the previous ten thousand years. At some level the others recognised a profound truth in this and drowned him, like his predecessors, in a vat of Brew.
Today it was the turn of Wronwright’s roundhouse to make the Brew. Everyone collected outside the building and shouted ‘It’s our roundhouse’ in order to remind the others in the settlement. Others would shout back ‘It’s your roundhouse’ to ensure no confusion. Thousands of years later, this ritual would be preserved in the expressions ‘It’s my round’ or ‘It’s your round’ in relation to purchase of alcoholic beverages.
When ready, the opaque, yeasty liquid would be carried to the local drinking circles where it would be consumed amid singing, dancing and story-telling until most gathered there were propped unconscious against the standing stones. This once again leading to the later expression of being ‘stoned’.
Stone avenues leading from the circles had been a wonderful invention in helping the villagers find their way home at night or locate one of the fast food longbarrows.
Twenty-first century archaeologists are now accepting the theory that people in the Iron Age had many parties.
Wronwright, however, could have told them they were wrong. There was just the one - beginning in 12,000 BC and ending with the Roman invasion.
</snip>
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 20 at 12:52 AM • permalink#151 Floss, I’ve always had the greatest respect for your scholarship ever since you started spouting off all that Bible stuff and sounded like you actually knew what you were talking about, not to mention your familiarity with modern Israel.
As you know, I dabble. I’m a tabloid man. Josephus, Suetonius, that kind of thing. Classical rogues and scandalmongers. Also a big fan of modern Israel and matters Israeli. (and you don’t see them cracking wise re Mohammad. They’ve got more important messages they want to get across)How long its been since you rubbed your stelae, that’s your business. But as for relevance, anyone who can rattle off his Herods like you can, I’m interested to hear from. Same shit, different day, in that part of the world. More or less. Also in total agreement re agreeable disagreement.
Meanwhile, hi Dave S. I know you can read and Maine is a great place full of literate people in possession of most of their teeth who are not married to their cousins. Well, Steven King, anyway.
Posted by crittenden on 2006 09 20 at 01:16 AM • permalinkSnake analogies very interesting and apt. I grew up around a lot of snakes. Cobras, pit vipers, kraits, that kind of thing. Here’s the deal with snakes. When you encounter one, you either walk around it, or you cut its head off with a shovel. Poking with a stick, pointless and stupid.
Posted by crittenden on 2006 09 20 at 01:28 AM • permalink#172 Crittenden ... Unless you’re Steve Irwin, halloweth be his name, in which case poking it with a stick is the highest exercise of conservation.
Posted by crittenden on 2006 09 20 at 01:31 AM • permalinkWhile I’m busy yammering, Floss exhibits his eruditeness yet again, this time with the 60-second tour of the neolithic.
Posted by crittenden on 2006 09 20 at 01:48 AM • permalinkHiya Crit.
We’re only picking on ya cause we can. We know you get it. You know who’s side you’re on and who the bad guys are.
You’re one of the good ones, we dont forget that.
And to y’all that are having issues with postings discappearing off to the never never on ya…Try thinking in smaller chunks. When you think smaller thoughts you post faster and the site is less likely to hang on ya…and if it does hang on ya, you lose less anyway.
So, think less, be more productive :)
#175 Grimmy, the last 2 paragraphs… that may just be the most disturbing posts I’ve ever read.
But it DOES explain leftism, in a way. And perhaps their entire ethos. Taken to a logical conclusion it means ‘not thinking at all is the most productive you can be’.
I offer the Warsaw Pact as proof.
Now, checking out Lenin’s and Stalin’s USSR, kinda shows that leftists have an astounding ability to follow even the most staggeringly stupid idea right through to the bitter end - no matter how much it hurts or how cretinously surreal it becomes.
I also offer North Korea as proof.
SO I think you have got something there.
MarkL
canberraMarkL:
You misunderstood me, I think. I didnt say think in restricted chucks or think without regard to reality. I said think in smaller chunks.
It’s too easy to get lost in convoluted rationalisms and get into concession chains that lead to becoming compromised when folk indulge overmuch in “deep thought” or over analyzation.
Thinking in large chunks also tends to lead to longer postings. When those postings get lost it causes pain. Therefore, thinking in large lots is inherantly painful.
I think in small chunks and post in short posts. Therefore when one gets lost, I hardly notice. Therefore thinking in lighter loads is not painful.
Think in smaller chunks.
Great concept, Grim. (A major tenet of software development and engineering I might add. Oh, I just did.)
Makes me think of a Captain Beefheart line:
Somebody’s had too much to think!
#169 Nilk: It’s worksafe if you’re not a zookeeper. Kenyan rangers trying to release an urban-captured leopard. He poked it in the cage at the back of the vehicle with a stick, trying to get it to escape to the wild. Afforementioned cat got really pissed off and lept in cabin, attacking well-intentioned ranger.
Video is Flash format on youtube.com
Pope Benedict -coolest Pope ever. Cardinal Pell- coolest Cardinal.
Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2006 09 20 at 05:04 AM • permalinkWalks away from damned infernal roundhouse, carrying remnants of brew in a wood bowl. Turns arounds and shakes fist in Fawlty Towers manner.
Curse all you neolithic hunter/gathers and your cursed manly drinking games! If you ask me, you’re all more gatherers than hunters! Sissy gatherers of berries and fragrant flowers that you save to place in your hair!
Hopes voice wasn’t loud. Walks away quickly. Notices the loss of a serious amount of beverage in shaking fit.
A bowl? When does a big fat mug become invented? I keep spilling this stuff. I need a handle.
Scuffs toe on flagstone walkway.
Oowww. Damn sandals. Screw the temporal prime directive. I’m wearing Nikes next time.
Notices that there are five walkways leading away from roundhouse.
Damn, where did Mark park it?
Suddenly feels a sense of danger. Looks over shoulder, looking for Andrea, Warrior Princess. Relieved to see it’s only a saber tooth tiger. Runs fingers over Pericles sword, one of a few weapons missed in the “confiscation raid” by Andrea. Notes that tiger moves away, possibly looking for a sleeping woman or child. Relieved. Feels rumbling in stomache from “dinner” consumed in roundhouse. Roasted antelope and stalks of wild einhorn wheat. Tasted terrible. Hungers for White Castles sliders. Would even settle for a Krystal burger. Wonders how long I have to stay on the lam in 10,000 BC Mesopotamia? Resolves never ever listen to MarkL’s suggestion of where to take the TARDIS.
10,000 years BC? What was I thinking? I took the suggestion of a minion? He knows shit. I could be lounging in a Pompei bathhouse being massaged by nubile Numian slave women. Instead, I’m being slapped on the back by smelly swarthy men of Middle Eastern appearance. Idiot!
Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 20 at 06:30 AM • permalinkBloody henchmen. Dumb as a box full of rusty hammers.
Look, Wron. The trilobites keep Lord Rove happy. So you get cover from above. I’ve put the other Tardis in for a service (which it needed after the damned pissup Paco had in it with the Campbell clan after the wappinshaw of 1422. We are STILL getting dead Vikings out of the bloody thing).
So you just have to keep away for a while till Andrea calms down. Sometime during the next ice age should be fine.
So what the hell are you doing grubbing about in the late stone age? You screw around with the controls while legless again, or do you like fleas?
Sheesh, head up to Augustine Rome and relax. Just stay away from Epicurus after what happened last time. Oh, and keep away from Leptis Magna. You still owe Phaeops the Greek 240,000 sestercii from that little incident with the goat, the Governor’s gilded barge, the silver tub and the amphorae of olive oil from Tarreconesis.
MarkL
MinionmeisterWW, MarkL:
Hey y’all, umm, sorry for intruding but can I ask a favor?
You see, there’s this guy who calls himself The Sun and he’s been buggin the heck out of me to try and get y’all to deliver a package to his boy named Tzu.
It seems he’s concerned about a game of Battling Courtesans that his boy is due to referee in the year 512BC at some warlord’s digs in a place called Wu.
So, this Sun character wants to know if y’all would mind delivering an updated rule book, with the new Bing Fa chapters, to his boy so he’ll be better prepared for the big game.
Soo… what should I tell Sun?
Good on the Pope for his comments, however its a shame they came as late as they did, I doubt they will make much difference to western Europe’s increasingly precarious future. The fact is - much of western Europe is already (to use the terminology of our esteemed administrator) fucked (and I mean this in the strictest demographic sense, ie: millions of muslims procreating sans prophylactics). Unfortunately the European elite, like Esau of biblical fame, have sold their birthright for a bowl of lentils (ie: short term economic benefits). The Pope in his speech was merely pointing this out to them.
#185 Parenthetically speaking, an insightful post, Willow76.
Interesting that you should mention Esau, given the prophecy that the descendants of Esau will eventually emerge into world history and express themselves in a wanton and savage way…but no, I’d better not start “spouting off”...
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 20 at 03:56 PM • permalinkI thought it was the descendants of Ishmael that would be wanton and savage. And also a great people like the descendants of Isaac.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 20 at 04:19 PM • permalink“And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father; Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.” (Genesis 28:8-9)
</spout>Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 20 at 05:17 PM • permalinkDamn, you’re good, MFloss. Never stop spouting off.
Posted by crittenden on 2006 09 20 at 08:49 PM • permalinkMuslims honor Ishmael as a great prophet on the same level as Moses to the Jews. They believe Allah commanded Abraham to take Ishmael, not Isaac, on the mountain to be sacrificed. Therefore, Ishmael is honored for his submission to Allah. When a Muslim takes a pilgrimage to Mecca, he must sacrifice a lamb in memory of Ishmael.
Sounds like the Muslims are the progeny of the wanton and savage Esau and Ishmael’s daughter. It does sound like a prophecy becoming fulfilled.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 20 at 09:47 PM • permalink#189: Right back at ya, Jules.
#190 Wronwright reveals that the Brew brings visions of things as they are!
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 20 at 10:41 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Shouldn’t that be a Rage-ometer reading, Tim, not a Rile-ometer one?
http://tinyurl.com/kbyqd