101. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #255632 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 28, 2008 at 1:42 am

And I keep forgetting that you're a Commie, LF. If you're fine with the ideology that slaughtered over a hundred million people and enslaved a third of the planet, you'll be fine with UN forces extorting sex from children, too.


EDIT: My point, root was that you were talking about the US friendship with the Saudis. I was pointing out that that was something we're stuck with because of the fact that SA is the Land of the Two Mosques.


One of the ways you can tell someone knows nothing about the current situation and cares less is that, when Iraq comes up, he'll say "Oh, why didn't we then send troops into Saudi Arabia?" Moronic comment.

102. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #255629 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 28, 2008 at 1:39 am

Also, the "decency" doesn't matter. The fact is around a 100,000 civilians including thousands of children are dead

Killed by whom, exactly? The jihadis.

103. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #255628 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 28, 2008 at 1:37 am

The U.N. is the only bastion of global negotiation that we have. Instead of the U.S. trying to tear it down at every opportunity, it should (if it were actually concerned with equitability) support the concept of a world parliament.

Well, I could agree that the US should just do what everyone else does: praise the UN and then ignore the bloody thing. Yet when they do that, everyone bitches (unlike, say, when Iran, Saddamist Iraq, the Sudan, North Korea, Zimbabwe et cetera, et cetera do it).

"World parliment"? Please, get real. Why would we want this, even if it were possible - if it meant having to listen to some of what get's to speak in the UN.

And it's worth noting that nations managed to negotiate quite well before the UN came along. Amazing, isn't it?

104. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255624 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 28, 2008 at 1:34 am

hawt, I think I missed something - what's this "huff" you said you were in?

105. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #255616 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 28, 2008 at 1:28 am

'Scusi root, any projections about tech progress especially of the "if only" kind, thend to be nonsense. You also retrenched. It wasn't about buying oil, but why we're stuck trying with the whole Ibn Saud nutcases.

106. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #255614 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 28, 2008 at 1:25 am

root could you please address my other points? They summarise the whole case - focusing in only on the one you think is easy to dismiss is vexing.

107. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #255613 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 28, 2008 at 1:23 am

Laurie, what else can you call this? How can anyone take this combination whorehouse and thieves guild of an organization seriously?

108. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #255608 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 28, 2008 at 1:18 am

zecat, again: leaving the Church to worship the UN? That's a step down.

Not respecting the UN is irresponsible and should be condemned.

Yeah? Or what? What, exactly, can the UN do that's any worse than what it does anyway?

Criticizing and mocking the UN is easy, but what else do we have, and what other solution do you propose

Simple. Quit with the ridiculous pretence that this silly body means anything. Keep it around for data-gathering, and some types of mercy missions, but for heaven's sake don't think it has any legitimacy in terms of "international law". There's no such thing. A law is only a law if it can be enforced. If you want some form of genuine international law that actually does provide a modicum of peace and decency, then there's the Pax Americana and nada else.

I also don't need any "well recognised" intellectuals to have confidence in my own case.

109. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #255602 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 28, 2008 at 1:14 am

root

1) al-Saud are scum, but they ain't the Sudanese janjaweed and noone even pretends that al-Saud are good people (unlike the UN putting the Sudan on their human rights board).

2) I've explained why we're stuck with a situation where it's either keep the House of Saud not openly against us, or be prepared for total bloody war with the entire Ummah. Are you up for that?

3) The US in Iraq have behaved more decently than virtually any invading force in history. Fact. I think that the whole bringing democracy to Iraq is a silly idea, a foolish waste of resources, but I have no reason to doubt their sincerity (a basic rule is never to attribute to malice that which you can explain by stupidity).

4) Unless you use no internal combustion engine, avoid most electical outputs, and have nothing to do with plastics, you, personally, have a very serious stake in the continued supply of oil. Got that? You're profiting as much from oil as Halliburton is (incidentally, what exactly, does Halliburton do anyway?). Meaning, you need those supplies. Now, I've argued that you should find other sources, that Canada has plenty of oil in its tar reserves, and that anything that bankrupts the Saudi regime is a Very Good Thing, but I do find this puritan horror of oil to be irritating.

110. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #255582 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 28, 2008 at 12:49 am

root, gotcha. Any discussion of Iraq that invokes that gargoyle called the UN is unserious.

But if you are going to say things like "The one that put the Sudan on its Human Rights Council while a genocide was going on?", what about the US being in bed with Saudi Arabia which treats women like dirt and is known for violating human rights?

There are two reasons for that: 1) Oil, 2) if the Saudis ever become overtly hostile, we're in deep trouble, because we couldn't counterattack, without doing the one thing that could get the Sunni and Shia under one banner.

The UN, however, unlike the US, claims to be this international embodiment of law and justice. That's it's sole claim to any sort of legitimacy. It doesn't just tolerate atrocity, it applauds it, and engages in it (that food for sex scandal is one of the more hideous things I've heard; I'm not joking about machetes).

111. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #255575 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 28, 2008 at 12:37 am

root, just on the subject of the UN - we are talking about that UN, yes? The one that put the Sudan on its Human Rights Council while a genocide was going on? The one whose peacekeepers have been found guilty of extorting sex from eight year olds throughout the Third world?(Memo to African tribespeople: you have machetes for a reason. Use them.)

That UN, yes?

112. Cartoons from Turkey

Comment #255571 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 28, 2008 at 12:23 am

The website of the evolutionist Richard Hawkins

If the good Professor Dawkins is reading this - get used to it! For some reason Islamic loonies always misspell people's names. Don't ask me why, but they do. Case in point:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017454.php

-----------------

Althought, that misspelling's given me a great idea. If genetic engineering has advanced far enough, we should see whether we can get hybrids of all our best scientists. Then we might well get a "Hawkins". I'm calling dibs, btw.

113. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #255570 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 28, 2008 at 12:18 am

zecat, so you escaped from the Church to worship the United Nations? I'd call that a step down.

114. When Atheists Attack

Comment #255568 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 28, 2008 at 12:15 am

MS,

So unless you think Muhammad has some sort of life after death

What, exactly, do you think his teachings constitute?

-----------------

Ian,



The poll was not done by Mr. Esposito, but by Gallup, one of the Gold-standard polling firms and it interviewed tens of thousands of Muslims in over thirty-five Muslim majority nations. Remember, this was a poll comissioned by an Islam apologist. Esposito has every incentive in the world to fake things so that they look nice (which he did try, initially: he came out with "Relax, only ninety-three million wanna kill us!" Then, after everyone had quit laughing, they looked at his data a little more closely and saw what it actually said.

Articles on the subject:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/066chpzg.asp?pg=1

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/020117.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021358.php
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010526.php
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/017496.php

If it were in the West Bank, I could well believe it, if London, I'd expect to see somewhat less.

Are you kidding me? On the West Bank everyone and their brother cheered 9/11. In London you might get the numbers down to 7% or so...

The second generation are better adapted and faced with their parents' intransigence, will find their own way.

Exept that it's the second and third generation that's producing the real nutters, the real hardcore Islamoheavies.

Finally, there is one glaring falacy implicit in what you say: that moslems are a united front, who will wash us all away. By far, the largest victims of moslem violence are other moslems. Right now, the reason violence is receding in Iraq is that the Shia militias have pretty much won against the Sunni and claimed their territory. The Shia and Sunni are still fighting over territory, still drawing lines in the sand. They can never unite.

Most of that is very true - but the last sentence and the overall conclusion doesn't follow. The pattern is clear to anyone who knows about Chaka in southern Africa, Ghengis in Mongolia, etc. You get these quarrelsome types who hate each others guts, but every so often someone comes along who manage to unite them enough that they are a serious problem for everyone else.

That was bin Laden's idea: whack the Great Satan so that he comes after us, and then the other jihadis will unite around me. It wasn't a ridiculous plan, not by a long shot. That's one of the good things about the Iraq war: after Zarqawi's anti-Shia mania, the chance of al-Qaeda uniting anyone is over.

Of course, in Iraq the Shia hate the Sunni and vice versa, and each one is happy to use the American presence to settle some old scores. That doesn't mean any of these guys like us.

While there are all sorts of internecine rivalries, the hatred of the Infidel is pretty much a constant.

115. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255553 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Er, I did. Now what was your point, Laurie?

116. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #255552 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 11:35 pm

Can someone explain me how on earth it's possible, acceptable and reasonable to agree on preemptive striking and invading Irak WITHOUT ANY U.N. MANDATE?!

For the simple reason that a UN mandate is a completely meaningless piece of paper, that's why.

The thing about the idea of a free, democratic, united Iraq is that it's a) impossible which is good because it is also, b) undesirable. My fatherland is a good example of what happens when you've got free democracies filled with people who hate jews. Anyway, the problem is that noone seems to get the heaven-sent opportunity. Support a free Kurdistan, and let the Sunni and the Shia slaughter each other. That'll be a permanent drain on the resources of the Jihad.

(oh, if it matters, Iraq had lost it's international sovreignity by all four standards that the UN sets).

117. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255546 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 11:27 pm

When I first started reading this message board I too was struck by Fanusi's arguments, and when you don't actually sit down and go through what he's saying, when you just let yourself have a knee jerk reaction to his posts, you do tend to dismiss it all as a big false alarm. Things can't be that bad, surely?

But you know, I read Bruce Bawer's book. And boy was that a wake up call!

Thank you, GoatBoy. That remains the reason I keep posting: every so often, you meet someone who'll do the reading and research on their own and get it. That's made my deay (and it's only just begun).

118. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255544 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 11:22 pm

Ah, now if only there were more people who believed this. Diacanu , if I had a hat, i would doff it for you.

Oh, give me a break, would ya? Yeah, sure, announcing this, that or t'other on a chatroom board is a sign of "bravery".

Nairb, it is quite possible we're talking about two different events, so, if it's not too much bother, could you post something in a language the rest of us can understand?

Or how would you like it if I started quoting things in Zulu?

GoatBoy, a couple of literary questions for you. Have you read Oriana Fallaci's The Force of Reason & if so, what did you think of the description of the fall of Constantinople? I'm also reading Christopher Tyerman's God's War, about the Crusades. I've only browsed a little, but it seems to be good on historical data, even if it is piss-poor on understanding Islam (classic bullshit line "though Muslims could, on occasion, be as violent as any Christians". No kidding. Really?).

Laurie,

You will not find one of Fanusi's "Certain People" who do not acknowledge, and is not worried by, the threat of islamic jihadism, terrorism, call it what you will

Really. So how come I get served the standard Islamapologist take-out menu all the time: two "tiny minorities of extremists", one "Da Christians were woise" with cheese, and a small insinuation of racism on the side) For - my response: a) eight-figure numbers aren't a tiny minority of anything b) i) no they weren't, and ii) we're talking about now not then, and c) I'm happy to complain about white Muslims even more than the regular kind.

What is key, though, is that you equate "jihadism" with "terrorism". Now that's a bad mistake to make. What we call "terrorism" is just qital, combat. Sure, it's the traditional method, and Muhammad does go on and on and on about how it's the only way any real Muslim should die, but Jihad is much more than that. It's any form of struggle to extend the Law of Allah over the whole world. It includes demographic conquest, campaigns of targeted Da'wa (recruitment; they're very good at that), legal jihad (suing everyone and his brother who speaks up about Islam), etc. etc. Sir Iqbal Sacraine is as much a jihadi as Usama bin Laden, even if we'd get into more trouble for killing the former.

119. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255449 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 3:12 pm

The reason I found the above so stupid, even as hyperbole is not because of Elton John,
who I think is a preening ninny, but because such things are never going to happen!

Wanna bet? Look, they tried, and almost succeeded in killing the frickin' Mayor of Paris for being gay. They aren't exactly impressed by ranks and titles, you know.

Respond to the rest later...

120. When Atheists Attack

Comment #255443 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 2:47 pm

There was this guy, long ago. Still about, but not in quite the same way. He was called the pope. And he had this thing called the inquisition. When interviewing people, they very rarely put people in comfy chairs and made them cups of tea. Then again, by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc definition, they probably didn't torture people either.

And there was this twerp. Used to hang out on this thing called a chat-board. When discussing with people, he'd very rarely bother to find out whether or his silly points had been destroyed ten times in the past. And he had to draw even sillier parallels, too.

-------------------------
Bonzai, a giant THANK YOU for getting it!

----------

We have seen in the history of Christianity many of the negative things present in Islam now.

Mark, not on the same scale. Not anywhere near as nasty. And - this is key - nowhere near as enduring

Islam managed to combine the bad bits of Judaism with the bad bits of Christianity, a whole mess of bad bits from Arab tribal culture and some psychoses that were peculiar to Muhammad - and set it loose on the world.

Ask yourself the following: where in history is there a figure to parallel Muhammad? Christ? Nope. Buddha? Not a chance. Socractes? Confucious?

No, there is only one parallel: another warlord who came to a broken and divided people, brought with him a Book and a Total System for All Life, was fiercely anti-semitic, exalted faith and war, and thought a woman's place was Children, Kitchen and Church.

Think on that. And, no, I'm not the first to figure that out. Churchill and Carl Jung (yes, that Carl Jung) figured that out too.

I'll answer the rest of those points later.

121. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255424 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 1:55 pm

cerebrate, celebrating Christmas is a practice, and I had some trouble finding an example to answer your question. Now chill.

Twp was hit by a drunk driver in a Hummer, she was in a mini Cooper. She was in the hospital for a week and was/is pretty banged up.

Oh Jesus... Is she okay?

-----------------

Steve, on the subject of my proposals (it's only two you have a beef with):

The UK would not just have to suspend the current incorporation of the European Declaration of Human Rights into UK law, but also remove itself from the European Court, and probably break certain links with the UN.

Okay, enough about their good points.

Such actions as these, and the removal of citizenship from natives are just not going to happen unless some far-right party (such as the BNP) gets into power.

In which case, we are well and truly cooked. This is what I have been gloomily worried about: that we might have reached the point that, realistically speaking, it's fascism or Shariah twenty, forty years down the road. Still, I'd rather not give up hope just yet.

As I said, when it comes to guys like Abu Hamza we can't leave them alone - that's suicide - and we can't stick them in a regular jail, as they'll recruit a whole bunch of jihadis. That leaves a) exile, b) confinement in perpetuity to something like Long Kesh, or c) death. You choose.

There's a second point. The Jihadis smell weakness and they're pressing that advantage. Chucking goons like Abu Hamza out draws a line in the sand, saying "that far and no further". I think that our future depends very much on giving Islam the impression that it's made a mistake in sizing us up. Darura.

122. When Atheists Attack

Comment #255254 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 6:36 am

For the umpteenth time, I'm not an American.

Bonzai, I'm aware of that. When I wrote an extremely extended essay on this subject (titled "Islam: It's as bad as you think, and they are coming to get you"), pointed out that in isolation each of these numbers can be explained. It's when you look at the whole bloody awful mess that it get's scary.

It's when you combine that statistic with the 75% Arab muslim support for HAMAS, with the stuff that's on Arab television (check out MEMRI and feel your head explode), with the honour killings, with the cartoon riots, with the support for Shariah etc. etc. - when you combine it with all of that, it gets scary.

I need to do some digging; I'll get you the source for that 80%.

Mark,

a) There aren't even that many orthodox Christians (let alone the fundies),

b) Christianity is the source of Church/State separation, so even many fundies can answer differently,

Islamic 'group feeling', the loyalty to the Ummah is much, much more dangerous.

123. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255206 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 3:29 am

I did. I don't happen to think that those past actions you mention were admirable. In fact, actions such as the relocation of American Japanese is just the kind of abuse of rights I am trying to prevent. It remains something of a scandal today.

Which is neither here nor there. For the record, I agree with you about the internment scandal. But that wasn't the point. The point was that we can do these things and have our societies continue just dandily.

124. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255203 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 3:20 am

No, it isn't. You are trying to confuse abandoning general rights for selected citizens with attacking an external enemy.

Steve, read post 3054.

My "naivety" is as nothing compared with yours that we can stop the Shariah express whenever we want.

125. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255192 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 2:46 am

I love it when I post something that ends up flattening another post that I didn't see:

We threaten the legal status of citizenship at our peril. Once it has been weakened, it becomes a dangerous tool for a corrupt government to use against those who it chooses. Such tactics are a weapon that fires both ways, and harms us too.

Once we erode such rights, it is going to be very hard to get them back, if ever.

Sorry, that's bull. See 3054 for details. In fact every society - not just nasty ones like the Reich, but well and truly every society - has been capable of unleashing whoopass on the enemy while being nice to its own. On purely factual grounds, that's nonsense.

Now, this just slaughters me:

That is just about what most people in the UK were saying about gay men decades ago.

If I'm reading this right, it implies that guys like Abu Hamza are like the gays forty years ago - poor, misunderstood minorities, wouldn't hurt a fly.

This is why I keep pointing out that, the instant these guys get a chance, they'll give You Know Who what is known as a "haircut and manicure".

EDIT:

Diac, I just did. Also, you lost the right to make that complaint a long, looooooooong time ago.

126. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255189 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 2:40 am

Diacanu, intellectually as well as temporarily you always arrive late.

127. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255188 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 2:39 am

Styrer , I dinnae like the term atrocity here. Booting Shariah supporting nutcases out of the country isn't an atrocity by any standards.

I will agree with you though: we've had much, much harsher measures in the past. Here's Victor Davis Hanson:

Sen. John Kerry intoned of the Patriot Act he voted for, "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night." Though, so far, that mild statute pales before exigencies of past liberal wartime presidents who really did jail innocents, night and day, without warning or sometimes even justification. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. During World War I, under the Espionage and Sedition Acts, Woodrow Wilson detained citizens without trial and made it a crime to slander the United States. Franklin Roosevelt convicted and executed saboteurs through military tribunals, and sent thousands of Japanese Americans to relocation camps.

128. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255184 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 2:33 am

Rachel,

In our desire to act fairly towards the Muslim community, are we willing to allow injustice to be perpetrated against its female members?

We already do. You see, that's the problem. In whom is "the Muslim community" embodied? Almost by definition it can't be embodied in westernized, kaffirized yong Muslimahs who are getting crazy ideas like they want to have jobs, and maybe independence, and possibly even feel some sunlight on their faces...)

There's another problem, which is what I alluded to earlier about the importance of maintaining a certain "group loyalty" to certain ideas. Here's the reason: how many people do you think have really sat down and thought it out and come to the conclusion that, hey, women's rights are a really good idea! No. Mostly we just accept that as a given, to the extent that it feels completely natural. This is because we've undergone a specific civilizing process that drills those ideas in at the cellular level. That's our memetic legacy, so to speak.

While that is all to the good, it leaves us with the problem of people who have a very different memetic legacy. To take the most extreme example, consider the Taliban. These guys hate women even more than the Wahabis do. They're pashtun, meaning they loathe women so much that they don't even consider them sex objects (there's a proverb to the effect that a woman's only for childbirth, otherwise it's a goat or a boy).

Now here's the point I'd like to stress: the same revulsion you or I feel when we see, say, a woman stoned to death, is what these maniacs feel when they see a woman with her face uncovered. They really, truly feel like that.

That's the extreme, I know. Yet it illustrates an important point. Steve makes much of the fact that the Shariah-supporting fire-breathing Imams are, "British citizens". While that's technically so, it misses the fact that, due to the upbringing these guys have had, they've got a memetic legacy which means they might as well be from the planet Zongo.

129. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255175 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 2:08 am

Indeed. So I would say (and somehow I suspect you may agree with me) that such legal authority needs to be removed, along with that of any other parallel system.

Of course. Where I disagree is that this is simply not enough.

This is why I want all Muslim immigration stopped. If we've got this now, what will we have ten years down the line, when the Muslim population is much larger?

I'm reminded of something Mark Steyn said: "If there's still sectarian violence in Ireland a hundred years down the line, it'll be Sunni/Shia". As if to prove him right, there are already Sunni Imams and Mullahs warning British Muslims about those dangerous Shia.

130. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255170 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 1:59 am

If people happen to be pressured into using such courts, they need to be able to subsequently decide not to abide by the decisions.

Except that they already have legal authority. Not to mention that the firebreathing Imam at the mosque probably has his own enforcers.

Seriously, can't you see where this is going?

131. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255167 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 1:54 am

Styrer (incidentally, was there always that "-" after your name?), no probs. Yeah, I heard the piece; it's not the first time I've heard it, either.

132. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255166 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 1:52 am

Steve,

Whereas before rulings by sharia courts in Britain could only be enforced if all parties in a Muslim civil case agreed to abide by them, now what the courts say will be legally binding, backed by county courts or the High Court.

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=7068

The idea that these would be "voluntary" was always idiotic. You can imagine how "voluntary" they were before hand: "Would you like to go to the Shariah court and get half your brother's inheritance, or would you prefer to be treated like an infidel whore?"

133. Diamonds May Be Life's Birthstone

Comment #255161 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 1:43 am

Oh, kick ass! This is a good bonus to my research.

ty90: nice :-)

134. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255160 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 1:40 am

Thanks Styrer. I appreciate it. ;-)

135. When Atheists Attack

Comment #255159 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 1:38 am

Steve, you complaining about my ad hominem's is laughable.

Now, hawt& others, I'd like to take this olive branch. I really would. Except that I've offered it myself before, so I know how this goes. In less than forty-eight hours, Steve will be back to dismissing any point I make as untrustworthy because I'm right-wing.

I'm happy to take the olive branch, if i is genuine this time.

----------------------------

, but I think this more true in UK then in France and other european countries and the US.

Yeah, Nairb, because completely underestimating the enemy and then having your butt kicked has never happened to the French...

----------------------------------------

Ian& others: I notice that everyone is invoking this 'tiny minority of extremists' nonsense. Has everyone here read Sam's book? The one where he cites that poll of Muslim opinions worldwide?

There's also lickspittle Islam apologist John Esposito's study. He did a 1 to 5 survey with the question whether the world's muslims supported 9/11. A whopping ninety-three million came in as 5s, i.e. total support. The same again were fours, and another three hundred million 'kinda' supported them.

Then there are all those studies, study after study, that show the huge level of support for killing apostates (well over thirty percent), Shariah, special laws preventing 'insulting Islam' (about seventy-eighty percent, last time I checked). But the statistic that is the one htat matters is the really freaky one: something like eighty-percent of Muslims in britain consider themselves members of the Ummah first, Brits second. That's worrying, because it indicates a widespread tribal solidarity. That is where MS's points crumble.

I assure you there is nothing we can do that will make Muslim group feeling any stronger than Islam makes it already.

136. Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates

Comment #255157 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 1:27 am

Steve, it's not a diversion. I could just as easily have made the comparison with some of the Christian apologetics about their involvement in the Holcoaust.

137. Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates

Comment #255153 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 1:20 am

Nice try, Jesus86 - political philosophy just happens to be my area of expertise. The study of Marx and Marxism has taken up much of my adult life.

If you look a little more closely at my previous posts, you will find that I have already agreed with you that "There has never been a true Marxist socialism, because (a) capitalism still hasn't reached its zenith, and (b) revolutionaries the world over who have been too impatient to wait for the full flourishing of the market economy have accepted Lenin's prescription for revolution instead."

Aaaaannnd... suddenly everything makes sense. After the slaughter of over a hundred million and the enslavement of a third of the planet, there are still fools who think being a marxist is something to be proud of, not a mark of indelible shame.

As for the "but I'm talking about real" - save it. That has about as much trackion with me as the "Islam is Peace" hogwash, or the even more idiotic "Islam promotes women's rights".

One of the few things the old monster ever got right was that a philosophy should be judged by its results, not by its protestations. Well, by that standard, Marxism is hung, drawn and quartered.

Now, I recall I was being accused on being "xenophobic" a while back. The fact is that pro-laissez faire capitalism is an internationalist position. You see, the net effect of the ill-dressed, ill-smelling anti-glob mob has been to, surprise, surprise, prevent globalization, i.e. maintain the trade barriers that are completly and utterly screwing the third world poor.

There is only one proven and demonstrated cure for poverty: hogwild capitalism and hard work. That's it. Even Marx understood that much.

138. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255151 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 27, 2008 at 1:09 am

Your ignorance of what Shariah is shows through time and again. It is the full doctrinal basis of Islamic religious law.

That you're advocating that certain parts of it can be taken to apply to particular parts of our secular activity indicates that you are unequal to the task of understanding precisely what it is you are so glibly advancing as a way forward for our society.

Got it in one, Styrer.

May I ask everyone to consider a hypothetical? Imagine Sarah Palin said that it should be conidered legit for some elements of Mosaic law to be used to arbitrate decisions in parallel courts?

Everyone and their brother on this thread would go completely ballistic. You may recall that over on another thread there's been a huge stink because Catholic doctors are refusing to volunteer information about abortion. I recall Steve saying that these doctors had no right to force their religious convictions on others.

Now, let me refresh your memories about what is going on in the UK: Shariah courts. This isn't just financing. These are honest to god courts with full legal power of enforcement.

The outcry from Certain People?

*crickets chirping*

The other point is that my views are always considered a "slippery slope", the ultimate end of which is jackbooed legions parading outside my suburban bedroom windom chanting "Heil Khiyal!". (Okay, admitedly I could be partial to that, mainly because it would drive the public nuisance I live next to nuts...). Okay, fair enough. At the moment my jackbooted legions feel lonely in a telephone booth, but I can sorta see where they're coming from.

However, the Shariah courts, the progressive criminalization of any criticism of Islam and all the rest are not considered a slippery slope, that we can halt this trend wherever we want to, and if we overshoot, we can pull back, and then push forward a little, and get it just right...

I submit that's lunacy. In it's original definition: someone who's otherwise an intelligent and rational person goes stark staring nuts for a bit, every so often. Is there any evidence at all that once we're on the Shariah Express we can stop it at any time.

Remember whom we're dealing with here. The Jihadis have held up against the Russians and the Chinese. If you had the balls to take on those guys, wouldn't you think you had a good shot at taking on the Belgians and the French?

----------------------------------

Im curious , which set of religious practices are according to you, by definition, FOR human rights?

cerebrate, this is pedantic. There's plenty that are neutral (celebrating Christmas or whatever). If I had to choose something that was for human rights, I'd be forced to go with the Gospel of Matthew's "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make ye free"; in the case of Solzhenitsyn, it certainly helped the cause of human rights.

On JihadWatch, I post under the same moniker.

139. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254803 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 8:31 am

Steve,

I have just discovered an interesting fact. Apparently at age 50, we get an official government letter that authorizes us not to put up with being patronised by others, but at the same time gives a license to be as patronising as we wish

Only at fifty? Both of my Unis issue those on enrollment. So, too bad.

--------

Brian, you know damn well that that's an inaccurate cut. My comments came after you had defined some of the characteristics of an infant that the fetus did not have. These, however, did apply to those "partial birth abortions" that produce a viable infant. I.e. one that could live, or at leas t live with some help.

----------

Mitch, I'm going to skip over those comments, because there is something serious here: just what is it going to take to stop these infernal small turf wars in every dispute? I'd agree with you there: I'd like 'em to stop.

-------

Titania, there are two types of stories in your post. One are the horror stories. I can match those, case by case. I can bring up endless examples of feckless, stupid pregnancies that were allowed to progress very late, and then, suddenly, were aborted. I can also tell you horror stories about partial birth abortions suffocating for an hour - or more - before dying.

So, let's not turn this into a horror-story showdown, shall we? Believe me, patriarchal alpha-male dinosaur that I am, I'd be more than happy for some rough-justice for those 'fathers' you described.

By what right do you tell a mother that it is her moral obligation to carry a child to term even if that child will have severe mental or physical disabilities

Titania, I have already answered that. Read my posts specifically dealing with the issue of mentally retarded children.

I can fire this straight back at you: By what right do you consign an innocent human life to everlasting oblivion? So, again, that doesn't get you anywhere.

(incidentally, we're talking about rights now? I remember a while back being derided for suggesting that there were such things as absolute rights).

That is the nub and crux of this argument for me: I have still to hear rocksolid proof that the fetus, at whatever stage you care to define, isn't a human being, a child. That is the dividing line.

or who are plain thoughtless or irresponsible

Exactly, and these account for the vast majority of abortions. "Thoughtless and irresponsible" isn't good enough, isn't by a long shot.

-----------

hawt, you got it in one:I oppose the draft. That's it. The draft is hideous. But a volunteer military is fine. I also don't buy into the premises of your second statement (they remind me of the "halp us jon kery" fiasco). These are adults who have made a choice.

If we are going to complain that "socializing" means that choice isn't free, then none of our choices can be free. We are what we are largely because of the civilizing process in which we grew up. The one we have embedded in ourselves now isn't natural or normal, but highly artificial.

---------

Serdan,

Yes, absolutely. I am very much not pro-abortion. In an ideal world no abortions would take place, but this is not an ideal world and I think that the immense importance of empowering women outweighs your concerns. Especially in the face of Islamic infiltration of modern civilization.

Again, I'm not sure how empowering abortion per se really is (compared with contraception, right to vote, equality etc.). If we're talking about Islam, however, that gets us into the whole nasty debate about demographics and what role abortion plays in that (not a good one).

That's why I said it's a nasty argument, because the argument that patriarchal societies are the only stable ones, long term, goes much, much deeper than this discussion. Here's the article on that subject:

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/the_return_of_patriarchy

140. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254764 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 7:23 am

Steve, I will cease 'diverting each thread to my favourite topic' when the likes of you quit diverting each one to an in depth discussion of how horrid you find me.

141. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254761 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 7:21 am

Brian, how about providing that example? I am well and truly getting sick of little comments about my behavior, followed by a high-speed retreat that makes the Lesotho army look good.

142. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254759 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 7:20 am

Indeed, anyone can.

143. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254756 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 7:17 am

Fanusi has a nasty technique of asking an innocent question then later claiming your answer as a general statement on all your views.

Brian we were getting on so well just a minute ago. Now, can you find me an example of this "nasty technique"? Please, take your time; you'll need it.

EDIT: thanks for the typo correction.

144. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254753 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 7:15 am

I spoke of lies and distortions. Your comments fall into the latter category. They really, really do.

Of course, your comments that I want to "join 'em", seem to fall more into the category of 'naked, stinking, goddamn lies'.

145. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254743 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 7:08 am

You said you found it a dark argument that you hoped wasn't true. You still made it, so don't call me a liar.

When I say that there's a dark argument and one I hope isn't true, it's a bit of a stretch to imply that I was supporting it, which is exactly what you were up to.

Hence I said, at the top of my post "lies and distortions" [emphasis added]

146. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254742 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 7:06 am

I don't find myself agreeing with you, but by Zeus you can snark my good fellow. Long may you snark!

Thanks. :-) If I'm crusty now, imagine what I'll be like once I pass middle age.

147. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254738 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 7:03 am

*glances over the posts* Hmmm... usual scum of lies and distortions to deal with first.

Actually, he did make that argument to me, in post 551.

Actually if you bother to read what I, in fact, wrote, you'll see two comments: 1) that abortion was going to vanish from purely Darwinian forces in the US, and 2) that there might a argument about its effects on demographics. Now, as regards this 2, I continued to say that I considered this a dark argument and hoped it wasn't true, because there are disturbing implications there.

Once again, facts fall to smears. Hey, don't let trivial matters of truth and accuracy stop you now.

"Deviant" and subversive ideas are bad for group cohesion in his view so he opposes them.

Bonzai I have replied, at some length, to this point in the "attack" thread. Now, kindly point out to me where I have been against "deviant and subversive" ideas.

What I have principally against is that peculiarly irritating brand of educated idiocy as embodied by Steve. Take this:

The fight for reason and clear-thinking involves a battle against dogma.

Translation: reason is anything that agrees with Steve's p.o.v., dogma is anything that disagrees.

For all the cretinous accusations of fundamentalism (one sure sign of bullshit is floating abstractions), it's you lot (Steve'z boyz) who are in the habit of speaking ex cathedra.

As I said earlier, that's not beating them, it's joining them.

Mitch, please stop with this melodramatic nonsense. "Joining them" would mean adopting real crusader tactics; basically what Alexander did to Thebes.

Again, for all the palaver about "black-or-white", its you who lives in a world of "Anything that doesn't subscribe to my views is nothing else than fully-fledged religious fundamentalism"

Oh, I've long concluded that, ever since that thread when he started moralizing at Brandy Spears based on some personally invented metaphysical ideas of "human dignity" that he gets to define and prescribe

This may be a little hard for you to understand, so I'll say it slowly: I grew up in a part of the world where there's a great deal of prostitution, but where the prostitutes are either dirt poor and trying to eat, or, still worse, the losers in a local scuffle of some description. All of them would give just about anything to escape from that, to live the way we do in the West.

Now, can you understand how, after having seen that up close, I feel about a spoiled and pampered westerner throwing her chances away?

Apparently the only acknowledged moral sin is passing moral judgement.

It is the consensus of medical opinion that there is not likely to be consciousness before 28 weeks.

Define consciousness, and how about a little reference? Oh, wait a second: there's no full definition and explanation of consciousness available.

If you think you can snow me, you're in a bad situation.


-----------

Now that I've cut through some of that, there are a lot of good points by Serdan, Titania, Bonzai etc. I should reply to. I'm once again stuck with too much to answer in too little time.

148. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254652 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 3:51 am

Bonzai, when I finish my new book - The Flagrantly Islamophobic Reader - can I get that quote from you to put on the cover? I mean, it's not as god as America Alone's "The arrogance of Mark Steyn knows no bounds", or The Truth about Muhammad's "May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split his brains in two, and then put them both back, and then do it over and over again", but it's pretty damn neat.

He is smart and eloquent but sometimes I think he is a bit insane.

I like that, I really like that. :-)

Mind if I reply to the bulk here a bit later? Probably this evening; I have a fair bit to take care of.

149. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254617 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 2:21 am

Sorry, Fanusi. I'm just not in a nice mood today. I get slagged off even when I am polite, and I think it has just made me snap and get filled with bile.

Welcome to my world.

Even though there seem to be so many of the total number of abortions taking place that would, apparently, lead to severe permanent mental disability.

From what I've read, the majority - great majority - of abortions is because of "unwanted pregnancies".

150. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254612 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 2:16 am

Serdan, at what point to you thik it accceptable to consign an innocent life to oblivion?

Look, we're not going to agree on this. Yet can we both agree that there are rational grounds for holding either of our two positions?