January 23, 2007

Let's learn

The need for clear perspective has never been greater. [She says, speaking in cliché.]

Never before have truth and facts been so important. [Oh, okay, now you’re descending into a load of hyperbolic meaningless twaddle, not supported by one scrap of historic evidence.]

Jacob [he who shall never, ever, be forgiven], drew our attention to this ignorant and perverse post over at Road to Surfdom. Displaying unnaturally screwed up emotional, intellectual and moral foundations; all I could do was gasp at the scale and depth of wretchedness that went into engendering such grotesque ideas, so genuinely held amidst the waft of hubris that we imagine swirls around the writer.

In essence, this twat suggests that terrorist suicide bombers carry out their acts in order to “help others”. [You know, like when you put the garbage can out for your elderly neighbor? Or volunteer to help some disabled kiddies with learning life skills? Being a suicide bomber is just like that.].

He also seems to revel in believing that we (ie, the big bad West) are envious of the high ideals that lead to suicidal terrorist acts, because we (ie, the big bad West) have no ideals for which we would lay down our lives.

Think about that last bit. Think about it long and hard.

Think about the millions of non-terrorists who have died throughout history, and will die – some of them today – for “our” ideals.

Not prepared to die for our ideals???!!!

If a war was bought to our shores, that is, quite literally to the shores of Australia, we can be 100% sure that not only the armed forces, but civilians too, would risk and give their lives in a myriad of unimagined ways, for no reasons other than our ideals and for the good of others – pure altruism. We have never had to defend our own country (other than a couple of little Japanese subs) yet, our men and women have fought and died on other lands, and continue to do so. Western military personnel, including our own, are scattered all of the world, in many instances, fighting for or protecting nothing more or less than ideals.

Once you’ve gagged on that little lot, be cleansed by the soothing clarity of Martin Amis’ words:

“People of liberal sympathies, stupefied by relativism, have become the apologists for a creedal wave that is racist, misogynist, homophobic, imperialist and genocidal. To put it another way, they are up the arse of those that want them dead.”

The Martin Amis reference, via Tim Blair whose attention was drawn to it by Art Vandelay, who got it via The Austalian, and now I’m quoting all of them. [See this “Quote Generator” thing is a doddle! In triplet!]

Only last week Cubicle highlighted an interesting piece – it’s about history, okay, but it’s short, so you won’t fall asleep, I promise.

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad.

See, it’s not about Western wealth, and it’s not even about gullible, well-educated, affluent suicide bombers. This shit has been going on for a very long time. This prodigious hatred and desire to see “us” killed is a continuum. These machinations sure as sugar aren’t about our lifestyle – there were no iPods, Wiis, or bikinis back in Jefferson’s day, no siree.

During last week we had the brouhaha over local lad, Sydney born and raised, Sheik Mohamed, urging Islamic youth to have a love of martyrdom, and criticizing them for not sacrificing a drop of blood. He didn’t say anything, in his heavy Aussie accent, about affluence or lifestyle. All he wanted was the inculcation of children (their soft squishy impressionable little hearts), and their blood to be spilled in the name of his ideals, when they reach an appropriate age.

Perhaps these are the ideals of which Road to Surfdom believes we are, or should be, in envy.

Survey results from a study undertaken by the University of MalayaMalaysia being one of the Muslim world’s most prosperous and democratic nations:

- 55% of Malay Muslims hate or dislike Australia; only 4% felt positive towards Australia;

- 84% dislike or hate the US; only 1% liking the US;

- 77% believed the country’s existing sharia laws were not strict enough;

- 57% want hudud ordinances, ie, stoning for adultery;

- 98% said that Muslims should not be allowed to change their religion.

[Envious yet? Go on, feel the envy.]

“In a fascinating piece in this week's Financial Times, Turkey's foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, often seen as one of the most Islamist-inclined foreign ministers Turkey has had, called on the peoples of his region to recognise that their most serious problems were home grown. He wanted them to stop blaming outsiders and get on with the business of reforming their own societies.”

The Weekend Australian, January 20-21, 2007Hate beyond reason – Greg Sheridan

Join the dots people, join the dots. Ignorance has always been a dangerous defence and a dangerous excuse.

But let’s not get too carried away: every era, every generation has its problems and challenges; these are ours.

35 comments:

  1. Anonymous10:01 PM

    Sorry , but as a christian, I cannot warm to the religion of Islam...

    Many people try and attribute the wars of the Crusades to the Christians...

    The reality , is, quite different!

    The crusades in the east were defensive wars.
    A direct response to Muslim aggression.

    Fact of the matter is though..

    Muslims do not like Jews ,Christians , buddhists, atheists or any one else who will not convert to Islam!

    Christians, are not and never will be suicide bombers ..

    Christians in the eleventh century were not fanatics..
    Truth is the muslims were out to get 'em!

    And Caz.. Yes the challenge is a great one..

    I believe bigger than any we have previously faced!

    ReplyDelete
  2. We all go to our deaths not knowing what history will record Kath.

    I'm not compelled to think this is the biggest challenge, perhaps we think that because it is "our era". We happen to be here now.

    For example, I'm not old enough to remember anything of the Vietnam war, but I'd bet those who are, and who marched in endless rallies, believed they were changing the world. They didn't.

    I definitely know that these last several years have been "different" to the last several decades, and that's cause for serious concern, thought, and action.

    If nothing else, it's "the vibe" isn't it Kath?

    When most of the world hates the leader of the FREE world and the country they lead, it has a very bad smell.

    I say that as someone who is not in the least amoured of ANY political side/s, and haven't been for quite some years now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:39 PM

    Gee Caz... I dunno mate .
    This is certainly a different kettle of fish to the Vietnam war.
    ( And I wasn't old enough to remember anything then either)

    Don't forget though, mate, back then you would not have gotten a (Islamic) woman strapping a bomb to herself and blowing up innocent bystanders.

    Certainly cause for concern.

    Islam has entered the " stealth" phase!
    I really do fear, that the worst is yet to come.

    I hope that I am wrong!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous11:03 PM

    Ah come on, Caz, you'll be thanking me for feeding you inspiration for this post. Passionately and well argued, and researched.

    It was interesting to read in that US Vets article you linked to that "Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men", i.e., the Koran validates and reinforces a set of attitudes and behaviours, mainly for the benefit of Muslim men, etc.

    This is something in common with many sacred texts, e.g., the Old Testament documents a number instances of ethnic cleansing, including the taking of young virgins for booty, etc.

    And sorry, Kathy, but many Christians have been fanatics all through the centuries. You're overlooking the viciousness of the Inquisitions, anti-Jewish pogroms, etc.

    Let's not forget that the slave trade - okay, minus the castration for the eunuch trade (though I'm no expert) - flourished for centuries among the so-called Christian nations, including Jefferson's America. It wasn't uncommon for the Christian folk of the Old South to use black slave girls as sexual conveniences, etc. Evidently their Christian faith presented no impediments to such behaviour.

    As frequently noted by many, the problem for Muslims, and for the rest of us, is the apparent difficulty Islam has in throwing of the yoke of medievalism, and embracing secularism, in the way that many Western Christian societies have (notwithstanding notable lapses, such as Nazi Germany).

    I could go on, but it's late. Sweet dreams, y'all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous11:10 PM

    Point taken Jacob.. But how many Christian suicide bombers do we see today huh?

    Christian folk of the old South!

    Where in the new testament did Christ sanction the taking of slaves as sexual conveniences eh, Jacob?

    Nothin' Christian 'bout that old boy!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:33 PM

    Sheesh! Can't even spell me own name!

    Kath hangs head in shame!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous11:49 PM

    No, not in the New Testament, Kath, I grant you. Jesus would've been down on that sort of thing.

    Point taken, too, about the suicide bombers. Christian fruitcakes, such as Tim McVeigh, drive truck bombs to their targets and set them off by timer (or was it delayed fuse).

    Then again, anarchists like Ted Kaczynski send bombs in the mail.

    I think I've already held forth about the pengamoks...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous11:53 PM

    Jarcob!

    Too funny!

    Good Night Jabob old boy.. Heh heh heh!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jesus was down on that sort of thing. Those who follow prescriptions from the Old Testament that are contradicted in the New Testament are not being Christian.

    So the fanatic who blows up an American abortion clinic cannot claim to represent the Christian faith - not even slightly. The fanatic who kidnaps and beheads an American non-Muslim in the name of Islam is textually justified by his religion. He can brutally murder and still be a good Muslim.

    There's the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In fact, not just a good Muslim, but a better Muslim?

    Sorry have not had chance to say anything about this subject today. I'll have to try later, need food, right now.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous8:53 PM

    Yeah, that's the nub of it, James. Unless he's a member of one of the Shiite sects...

    In contrast to the Sunnis, some Muslim groups like the Imami and Bohora-Ismaili Shiites are forbidden from participating in offensive jihad. This is because for both sects the only person legitimately capable of conducting an offensive jihad is their Imam, and he is presently in occultation (that is, in hiding and incommunicado until the end of time). The two sects, however, are permitted participation in defensive jihad.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hence why the Sunnis and Shiites keep killing each other ... amongst other differing beliefs about their shared religion. It's deeply ironic / paradoxical, of course.

    While different Christian groups disagree with each other, and let's face it, shun and denigrate each other's beliefs and interpretations (oh yes they do - vigorously!), they don't, in general, kill or wish to kill "the other" Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Of course Jacob, you'd have to agree (?) that events are now such that at any given moment an interpretation of "defensive jihad" could be fully defensible within the groups you're talking about, ie, their interpretation and application of such.

    If you get my meaning ... not being facetious either, quite serious.

    A reflection of how much of a mess Muslims have got themselves into, without having looking to us, or our lands, to make it worse.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous9:46 PM

    Spot on James!

    Couldn't of put it more succintly myself mate!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous9:47 PM

    No worries, Caz, I do take your point about the interpretation of 'defensive'.

    The term 'defensive' has in fact been quite elastic either side of the divide. GWB's little Iraq adventure was a so-called 'preventive war', the rationale being ultimately that it was a 'defensive' action. Sadly the Islamic world took it as yet more evidence of those 'offensive' infidels.

    Their interpretation is not without some justification, given that virtually all the assumptions and projections of the CotW have evaporated one by one.

    So I don't necessarily buy your assertion that 'we' haven't made things worse. Having said that, I have no real objection to the idea that there's serious problems inherent in the mindset that prevails over much of the Islamic world.

    Chiefly, I'm guessing, 'their' perception is that 'we' can do nothing right. Because we're infidels, see.

    A self-reinforcing closed cosmology. That's certainly a big problem. I'm not convinced, however, that hurling ordnance willy-nilly at the problem is going to make it go away.

    The idea behind the Iraq debacle was to foster democratic aspirations in the Islamic world. The only sustainable way to do that, and in a way consistent with civilised standards, would be to strengthen the moderate middle. The evidence suggests that precisely the reverse was achieved, with middle class Arabs becoming more inimical towards the West, and suspicious of its intentions in the Middle East.

    Well, that's how I see all this at this late hour.

    And have I said recently that New Blogger is seriously giving me the shits...

    ReplyDelete
  16. I noticed today that Beta Blogger now has the "Beta" crossed out .. oooh, it's all grown up and it STILL sucks!

    No, no, was not suggesting that we haven't put our foot into it from time to time, as you do.

    I was actually meaning that "they" already rip the crap out of each other, relentlessly, so they don't need to turn on us as well - they seem to have enough "enemies" amongst themselves.

    The Iraq *difficulties* were, alas, a direct if wonky line from numerous points of provocation on "us". It's not as though it was a random act of violence ... pretty bloody stupid maybe ... not to mention the indefensible justifications, blah, blah.

    ... to foster democratic aspirations ... *sigh* ... they could have picked a more amenable country to attack, if that was the goal.

    Sorry, being a bit flip, running out of steam, and it's only Wednesday ... public holiday Friday ... YEAH! Thank goodness for imperialist British invaders!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous10:05 PM

    It ain't late over here Jabob. Only 7.50pm here in Perth!

    And my opinion in all this, is, we do not HAVE to necessarily make things worse

    In fact I'm with Caz on this one.

    The fact that we are infidels is enough!

    It is after all written in the Qur'an.
    eg Mohammed said
    Qur'an 9:123 murder them and treat them harshly:( the infidels)

    Sums up the whole religion really!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Kath - It certainly gave me pause for thought that Jefferson, after much study and consideration, determined that all out war, not appeasement (or payments) was the only viable solution. He then pursued that cause with total conviction and commitment. No equivocating. No nervous nellies. That era may have been different, the burning provocations have moved on a bit since then, but, Jefferson did his homework and acted. What if he hadn't?

    ReplyDelete
  19. ... pretty bloody stupid maybe ... not to mention indefensible justifications ...

    Oh dear me, yes, let's not go there.

    "Murder them and treat them harshly." (In that order?) Indeed, Kathy, that one's rather a smoking gun, eh.

    I guess, when the Inquisition burned heretics like Giordano Bruno, at least one can say they did it with due process. A nice, civilised, administrative brutality. I hope he appreciated that as they turned him, still alive 'tis said, over the coals.

    Now I'm being flip... Time to kick back. One more sleep and it's the long weekend. Yay for that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh, skimmed over that:

    "Murder them and treat them harshly."

    Tee, hee.

    Oh dear, oh dear.

    Tee, hee.

    Jacob - you would be aware, of course, that at the time, and to this very day, even to this very minute, there are those who believe, advocate, and probably even salute the WMD *evidence*?

    To be honest, I would have felt more comfortable if they'd owned up to wanting to go and bomb the place, for the heck of it, or to finish what they'd started a decade ago. As with so many circumstances in life: it's the LIES that do the most damage; people are much better at dealing with truth than they, or others, give them credit for. (Any Bin Laden linkage, was an even further stretch than the WMD.)

    ReplyDelete
  21. 'Damage' is the very word, Caz.

    I recall at one stage, after the cat was pretty much out of the bag, the Whitehouse owned up that it had to have an 'administrative' justification for the decision to invade. I thought, welcome to Wonderland.

    Kathy, I don't know whether that verse sums up the whole religion. I will say that, as religions go, it does seem a rather joyless creed.

    And so many capital offences! I hope they administer their law, er, administratively.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous11:03 PM

    Okay , so I got it the wrong way round !

    Nobody's perfect! Least of all me!
    *sniff*

    Actually, don't think it makes a difference really....
    When you think about it!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Alas, true Jacob, they DID need an administrative justification, nationally and internattionally, no matter if it was plausible or acceptable. Jeez, you'd have wanted the brains-trust to come up with something better though.

    Kath - I liked your version. :-D

    Nighty, night, sweet dreams everyone.

    xxxxoooo

    ReplyDelete
  24. Easy, Kath, it was a bit of frivolity on my part.

    Nigh'

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous11:10 PM

    Agreed JACOB.. Certainly a joyless creed!

    I mean what would I do without my chardonnay tipples on the weekends( Occasionally I transgress during the week as Caz can attest to!)

    Of course Islam forbids all alcohol.
    ( Kath blows rasberries)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous11:12 PM

    What do we get for a simultaneous posting Jacob??

    ReplyDelete
  27. Bingo!!!

    Hopefully Caz is good for the payout.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Err, simultaneous, um, arh ...

    OMG - you two are disgusting!

    And on MY blog!

    Icky oooooooohhhhhh!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm also covering a similarly weighty issue on my blog, Caz. Perhaps you might like to offer your opinion at your earliest convenience.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jacob,

    Very late sticking my two cents in, but Tim McVeigh was NOT a Christian fruitcake. More precisely, he didn't commit the bombing out of "Christianist" motives. He was a white supremacist

    ReplyDelete
  31. A very weighty post, Caz. I, too, wonder how islam calls itself a religion of peace when such violence & barbarity springs from its teachings. What is up with that?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I don't know, jgm. McVeigh was a Christian (RC background), a fruitcake, and he was beholden to a self-transcendent 'cause' or 'mission' that justified mass slaughter.

    But, of course, we must come back to the fact that, whereas McVeigh did his deeds by somehow side-stepping the constraints of his culture, Islamic faith and ideology evidently gives a big green light to such mass slaughter.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but there's some kind of continuum there, but I'm just very much grappling in the dark. I still think the pengamoks are a key, somehow.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous10:29 PM

    Jacob, Catholicism had nothing to do with it mate..

    Mc Veigh said he was an agnostic.

    Apparently his father was a devout( gee I hate that term) Catholic.

    I don't believe that his Catholic background was influential .

    Thus I agree with Drunka.

    He was a white supremacist!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Kathy, Catholicism and agnosticism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    Or maybe that's Anglicanism and agnosticism.

    Well anyway, McVeigh also apparently said that he believed in "a God". How JESUIT is that?

    But I'm not asserting that his RC background was particularly crucial to anything he did.

    Rather I point out another resonance of McVeigh's with certain aspects of the Islamic ideology or mindset, namely the perception of some monumental victimhood.

    In the case of McVeigh and his mad cohorts, it was the spectre of BIG GUVMENT.

    Wasn't that why he destroyed the Federal Govt building in Oklahoma City?

    (By the way, hope you're all making the most of Comet L1 McNaught. In Australia, you can check it out kinda due south after sunset. Look to the west/right of the Southern Cross.)

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Rather I point out another resonance of McVeigh's with certain aspects of the Islamic ideology or mindset, namely the perception of some monumental victimhood.

    In the case of McVeigh and his mad cohorts, it was the spectre of BIG GUVMENT."

    Concur.

    ReplyDelete