Drop our illusions

[JerrySeinfeld]

Recent column:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn121.html

[Black Dog]

Surely you could just combine all your Muslim-bashig/Steyn clipping into one thread for the sake of housekeeping? We don't need 15 different threads saying basically the same thing.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Recent column:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn121.html

Yet another great column by Mark Steyn .... thank you Jerry!

[sharkman]

What the MSM is doing in regards to Islam in general is pure propaganda. Mark Steyn and others are the only ones willing to face the truth and tell it like it is. For those who can't handle threads like this and think Jerry is a hate monger, here's a line for you that's been used on us conservatives for years: You can always change the channel!

[Black Dog]

Steyn is a gasbag, a pompous, high school dropout with delusions of grandeur whose gift for overblown prose is exceeded only by his lack of concern for the facts. It's funny: the left wing media is derided as being out of touch, but it's hard to imagine anyone more out of touch than Steyn (I wonder what cocktail party or theatre premiere he gleaned his great insights into the reality of Islam from?) His transition from Conrad Black toady to post 9-11 incoherence has been a sight to behold, like a slo-mo car wreck.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Steyn is a gasbag, a pompous, high school dropout with delusions of grandeur whose gift for overblown prose is exceeded only by his lack of concern for the facts. It's funny: the left wing media is derided as being out of touch, but it's hard to imagine anyone more out of touch than Steyn (I wonder what cocktail party or theatre premiere he gleaned his great insights into the reality of Islam from?) His transition from Conrad Black toady to post 9-11 incoherence has been a sight to behold, like a slo-mo car wreck.

If you disagree with Steyn, try to attack the argument, not the man.

[Black Dog]

If you disagree with Steyn, try to attack the argument, not the man.

I would if there was a coherent argument to attack. The gist of the article--"can we really trust the dirty terrorist Muslims in our midst"-- is not such an argument.

[JerrySeinfeld]

If you disagree with Steyn, try to attack the argument, not the man.

I would if there was a coherent argument to attack. The gist of the article--"can we really trust the dirty terrorist Muslims in our midst"-- is not such an argument.

Actually I thought the main point of the article was:

The media is politically careful to tiptoe around the Muslim issue and hesitant to bring to light anything that might be attacked as "anti-muslim" - but in so doing the media as robbed the west of a chance to get to know more about the Muslim world and what it is really about.

[Black Dog]

The media is politically careful to tiptoe around the Muslim issue and hesitant to bring to light anything that might be attacked as "anti-muslim" - but in so doing the media as robbed the west of a chance to get to know more about the Muslim world and what it is really about.

That's odd: because I see a helluva lot of coverage of Muslims: sharia law in Ontario, the Khadrs, the reaction to the Danish cartoons, the DC sniper, the 9-11 "20th hijacker" trial, etc etc. What I'm certainly not seeing is much representation of Mulsims themselves: you know, the people who would probably be able to offer the most insight into their own communities. As it is, we have to rely on pundits like Steyn for our information on what makes Muslims tick (and I have to wonder, as a Jewish-Catholic-Anglican-Baptist, where he gets his insight from, but that's the perk of punditry: you don't actually have to know what your talkig about as long as you say it with authority).

[JerrySeinfeld]

The media is politically careful to tiptoe around the Muslim issue and hesitant to bring to light anything that might be attacked as "anti-muslim" - but in so doing the media as robbed the west of a chance to get to know more about the Muslim world and what it is really about.

That's odd: because I see a helluva lot of coverage of Muslims: sharia law in Ontario, the Khadrs, the reaction to the Danish cartoons, the DC sniper, the 9-11 "20th hijacker" trial, etc etc. What I'm certainly not seeing is much representation of Mulsims themselves: you know, the people who would probably be able to offer the most insight into their own communities. As it is, we have to rely on pundits like Steyn for our information on what makes Muslims tick (and I have to wonder, as a Jewish-Catholic-Anglican-Baptist, where he gets his insight from, but that's the perk of punditry: you don't actually have to know what your talkig about as long as you say it with authority).

Read the article again. That's precisely what Steyn is saying: A usually-minority-friendly media has been sparse in they're ability to get peaceful, rational Muslims to come forward. Why is that?

As far as media coverage - it's hard to avoid the negative coverage when that's all there is. Show me some non-terrorist, non-violent muslim news and I'm sure the media would be scrambling all over themselves to print it.

[geoffrey]

Read the article again. That's precisely what Steyn is saying: A usually-minority-friendly media has been sparse in they're ability to get peaceful, rational Muslims to come forward. Why is that?

As far as media coverage - it's hard to avoid the negative coverage when that's all there is. Show me some non-terrorist, non-violent muslim news and I'm sure the media would be scrambling all over themselves to print it.

I recommend in your spare time to take a course in introductory logic or something. I understand BD's frustration with such arguments.

Saying that "people don't exist because they aren't on TV because if they did exist, I'm sure the news would love to have them", is such a faulty argument that you can't even reasonably dispute it.

I don't like the MSM's left bias. I don't like their refusal to address some serious concerns within the Muslim population. However... some crazy idea that they have a pro-muslim protectionist agenda is beyond any reasonable train of thought.

[Black Dog]

Read the article again. That's precisely what Steyn is saying: A usually-minority-friendly media has been sparse in they're ability to get peaceful, rational Muslims to come forward. Why is that?

Ah so the implication here is that there are no "peaceful, rational Muslims" (that is, Muslims everybody at work can agree on).

I'm interested though: how much digging has Steyn done? Is he trying to bring a greater diversity of voices to the op-ed page? I've a gut feeling Steyn isn't looking for thoughtful commentators coming forward to explain the true spiritual meaning of the term jihad (they are out there, and not hard to find). He's looking for voices to confirm what he's telling us (that Muslims are nutjobs that want to destroy us all). That isn't an argument: it's wishful thinking.

(Strangely, he asks, "But surely it's worth asking why in 2006 the Washington Post needs a man with a name like 'Ronald Stockton' to explain Islam to us?", which raises the obvious question of what makes a man with a name like "Mark Steyn" better qualified?)

But hey, if it's diversity Steyn wants, I'm sure he'd be happy to give up his cushy gig on the cocktail circuit and hand the reigns over to a Muslim, right?

[Biblio Bibuli]

But hey, if it's diversity Steyn wants, I'm sure he'd be happy to give up his cushy gig on the cocktail circuit and hand the reigns over to a Muslim, right?

That shows how much you know about Steyn. He's a rather elusive figure who, in many cases, has never even met his bosses or colleagues.

A funny story is that once he was persuaded to attend some office meeting of a paper in Britain & was approached by another member of the staff with "Hey I hear we're all finally going to get to see Mark Steyn today".

Not quite the boulevardier you make him out to be.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Read the article again. That's precisely what Steyn is saying: A usually-minority-friendly media has been sparse in they're ability to get peaceful, rational Muslims to come forward. Why is that?

Ah so the implication here is that there are no "peaceful, rational Muslims" (that is, Muslims everybody at work can agree on).

I'm interested though: how much digging has Steyn done? Is he trying to bring a greater diversity of voices to the op-ed page? I've a gut feeling Steyn isn't looking for thoughtful commentators coming forward to explain the true spiritual meaning of the term jihad (they are out there, and not hard to find). He's looking for voices to confirm what he's telling us (that Muslims are nutjobs that want to destroy us all). That isn't an argument: it's wishful thinking.

(Strangely, he asks, "But surely it's worth asking why in 2006 the Washington Post needs a man with a name like 'Ronald Stockton' to explain Islam to us?", which raises the obvious question of what makes a man with a name like "Mark Steyn" better qualified?)

But hey, if it's diversity Steyn wants, I'm sure he'd be happy to give up his cushy gig on the cocktail circuit and hand the reigns over to a Muslim, right?

actually I think steyn would correct you: "there ARE peaceful, rational muslims. most of them are. just as most germans were not nazis - but alot that did the rest of the world and the jews. if peaceful rational muslims will not speak up out of fear, then the refusal to print cartoons is just another form of the aqcuiescent, peacful muslim."

[Biblio Bibuli]

Read the article again. That's precisely what Steyn is saying: A usually-minority-friendly media has been sparse in they're ability to get peaceful, rational Muslims to come forward. Why is that?

Ah so the implication here is that there are no "peaceful, rational Muslims" (that is, Muslims everybody at work can agree on).

I'm interested though: how much digging has Steyn done? Is he trying to bring a greater diversity of voices to the op-ed page? I've a gut feeling Steyn isn't looking for thoughtful commentators coming forward to explain the true spiritual meaning of the term jihad (they are out there, and not hard to find). He's looking for voices to confirm what he's telling us (that Muslims are nutjobs that want to destroy us all). That isn't an argument: it's wishful thinking.

(Strangely, he asks, "But surely it's worth asking why in 2006 the Washington Post needs a man with a name like 'Ronald Stockton' to explain Islam to us?", which raises the obvious question of what makes a man with a name like "Mark Steyn" better qualified?)

But hey, if it's diversity Steyn wants, I'm sure he'd be happy to give up his cushy gig on the cocktail circuit and hand the reigns over to a Muslim, right?

actually I think steyn would correct you: "there ARE peaceful, rational muslims. most of them are. just as most germans were not nazis - but alot that did the rest of the world and the jews. if peaceful rational muslims will not speak up out of fear, then the refusal to print cartoons is just another form of the aqcuiescent, peacful muslim."

You've got him good, Jerry .... CONGRATS!

Here it is in black & white if he doesn't believe you:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn051.html

Second to last paragraph, I think.

[Black Dog]

there ARE peaceful, rational muslims. most of them are. just as most germans were not nazis - but alot that did the rest of the world and the jews. if peaceful rational muslims will not speak up out of fear, then the refusal to print cartoons is just another form of the aqcuiescent, peacful muslim."

First, thanks to BB, I see Steyn never said there were such a thing as "peaceful, rational muslims". The full quote: is:

In that sense, the ports deal is the American equivalent of the Danish cartoon jihad: increasing numbers of Europeans -- if not yet their political class -- are fed up with switching on the TV and seeing Muslim men jumping up and down and threatening death followed by commentators patiently explaining that the "vast majority" of Muslims are, of course, impeccably "moderate."

I'm not sure where you concoted the rest of the quote from.

Thing is, there are such Muslim voices out there: Steyn probably hasn't heard of them, or , if he has, he rejects them (as he did in the case of the late Edward Said, whom Steyn mocked in death his usual sophmoric way).

Like I said before, Steyn is simply looking for someone to parrot his views. Mark Steyn in brownface, if you will.

[JerrySeinfeld]

there ARE peaceful, rational muslims. most of them are. just as most germans were not nazis - but alot that did the rest of the world and the jews. if peaceful rational muslims will not speak up out of fear, then the refusal to print cartoons is just another form of the aqcuiescent, peacful muslim."

First, thanks to BB, I see Steyn never said there were such a thing as "peaceful, rational muslims". The full quote: is:

In that sense, the ports deal is the American equivalent of the Danish cartoon jihad: increasing numbers of Europeans -- if not yet their political class -- are fed up with switching on the TV and seeing Muslim men jumping up and down and threatening death followed by commentators patiently explaining that the "vast majority" of Muslims are, of course, impeccably "moderate."

I'm not sure where you concoted the rest of the quote from.

Thing is, there are such Muslim voices out there: Steyn probably hasn't heard of them, or , if he has, he rejects them (as he did in the case of the late Edward Said, whom Steyn mocked in death his usual sophmoric way).

Like I said before, Steyn is simply looking for someone to parrot his views. Mark Steyn in brownface, if you will.

But where are these rational views being expressed? And why aren't they louder?

[Black Dog]

But where are these rational views being expressed? And why aren't they louder?

I've got a big beef with the idea that the Muslim world must pop up with ritual denunciations and shows of outrage whenever it's demanded. (Of course the notion that Muslims haven't reacted with outrage at events like 9-11 is a myth, but I digress.) In case you haven't noticed, the central teneant of the "clash of civilizations" narrative is the belief in distinct, separate and more or less homogenous participants. The reality is that neither the west or the Islamic world are homogenous. Islam is not a monolith. Surely the divisions within the faith (ie. Sunni, Shiite, Sufi) are proof of that. So how does one accomplish the trick of speaking for all 1.2 billion members of a heterogenous faith? That's the long answer.

[Biblio Bibuli]

there ARE peaceful, rational muslims. most of them are. just as most germans were not nazis - but alot that did the rest of the world and the jews. if peaceful rational muslims will not speak up out of fear, then the refusal to print cartoons is just another form of the aqcuiescent, peacful muslim."

First, thanks to BB, I see Steyn never said there was such a thing as "peaceful, rational muslims". The full quote: is:

In that sense, the ports deal is the American equivalent of the Danish cartoon jihad: increasing numbers of Europeans -- if not yet their political class -- are fed up with switching on the TV and seeing Muslim men jumping up and down and threatening death followed by commentators patiently explaining that the "vast majority" of Muslims are, of course, impeccably "moderate." So what? There were millions of "moderate" Germans in the 1930s, and a fat lot of good they did us or them.

I'm not sure where you concoted the rest of the quote from.

Don't thank me... it was you who left out the end (I added it btw) so you could accuse Jerry of concocting things. Otherwise, whether one says "Peaceful, rational Muslims" or "Impeccably moderate Muslims" ... I see no difference.

Jerry whipped you good!

Why is it that lefties never admit they've been beat when they get caught with their pants down and talking out of their asses?

I remember when the renaiming of Mt. Logan in honor of Jean Chretien fell through, Mark Steyn offered to rename his butt after da man. The only reason he changed his mind was because he realised that his friends would then be saying ... "Steyn is talking out of his Chretien again."

Rightwingers have style! ... They have confidence! ... They have chutzpah! ........ which reminds me ... was Argus banned yet?

[JerrySeinfeld]

I've got a big beef with the idea that the Muslim world must pop up with ritual denunciations and shows of outrage whenever it's demanded.

Huh? Muslims LOVE to pop up with ritual denunciations! They seem to have no lack of effort denuciating with outrage and embassy burnings over danish cartoons, burger king chocolate swirls and sex dolls named Mustafa Shag. Isn't it odd the same effort is somehow lacking when it comes to denoucing real atrocities and acts of terror?

So how does one accomplish the trick of speaking for all 1.2 billion members of a heterogenous faith? That's the long answer.

That's the point: so far the "fringe" militants have done all of the speaking for Muslims. My question is, if there are reams of moderates who disagree with the militants, then why haven't we seen the mass protests and shows of outrage about being misrepresented by these criminals?

[Black Dog]

Don't thank me... it was you who left out the end (I added it btw) so you could accuse Jerry of concocting things. Otherwise, whether one says "Peaceful, rational Muslims" or "Impeccably moderate Muslims" ... I see no difference.

Jerry whipped you good!

Why is it that lefties never admit they've been beat when they get caught with their pants down and talking out of their asses?

Actually, dummy, you sunk jerry's point. Steyn doesn't belive there are moderate voices and your quote proved it. Learn to read.

Huh? Muslims LOVE to pop up with ritual denunciations! They seem to have no lack of effort denuciating with outrage and embassy burnings over danish cartoons, burger king chocolate swirls and sex dolls named Mustafa Shag. Isn't it odd the same effort is somehow lacking when it comes to denoucing real atrocities and acts of terror

Bzzzt! Wrong! Muslims across the world denounced the WTC attacks. Mulsims denounced the London bombings. Muslims denounced the rioting. And so on and so on.

That's the point: so far the "fringe" militants have done all of the speaking for Muslims. My question is, if there are reams of moderates who disagree with the militants, then why haven't we seen the mass protests and shows of outrage about being misrepresented by these criminals?

How many Christians rose up to demonstrate against the Oklahoma City bombing? None? WHy that mus t mena they support it, right?

Seriously, has it occured to you that maybe a Muslim in Dearborn feels little connection to or responsibility for the actions of Muslims in Jakarta? You seem to believe in some kind of Islamic hive mind that issues orders telling adherents when and how to react. Ain't so.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Bzzzt! Wrong! Muslims across the world denounced the WTC attacks. Mulsims denounced the London bombings. Muslims denounced the rioting. And so on and so on.

Show me evidence of this.

How many Christians rose up to demonstrate against the Oklahoma City bombing? None? WHy that mus t mena they support it, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but McVeigh didn't bomb in the name of his Christian god.

Seriously, has it occured to you that maybe a Muslim in Dearborn feels little connection to or responsibility for the actions of Muslims in Jakarta? You seem to believe in some kind of Islamic hive mind that issues orders telling adherents when and how to react. Ain't so.

Seriously. You're way off the point. Steyn's main point is that there ARE moderate muslims but they aquiesce (sp?) to the militants out of fear. Same as the germans in Nazi germany - most were just afraid to speak out.

[Black Dog]

Show me evidence of this.

Start here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but McVeigh didn't bomb in the name of his Christian god.

Neither do most Muslim terrorists (link)but that doesn't stop you from demanding that all Muslims dance to your tune.

Seriously. You're way off the point. Steyn's main point is that there ARE moderate muslims but they aquiesce (sp?) to the militants out of fear. Same as the germans in Nazi germany - most were just afraid to speak out.

Actualy, Steyn, in his usual smarmy way, make sit pretty apparent he doesn't think there are such creatures. He more or less states that moderate Muslims are the creation of media commentators.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Actually, dummy, you sunk jerry's point. Steyn doesn't belive there are moderate voices and your quote proved it. Learn to read.

Mark Steyn wrote:

"Muslim men jumping up and down and threatening death followed by commentators patiently explaining that the "vast majority" of Muslims are, of course, impeccably "moderate." So what? There were millions of "moderate" Germans in the 1930s, and a fat lot of good they did us or them."

Black Dog's assignment:

Write 500 times on the blackboard what Steyn said above. After that, READ what you have written, ALOUD, 500 times. Try very hard to understand what you have written & read. Try harder. Then report back here and tell us whether you still think that Steyn doesn't believe there are millions of moderate Muslims.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Show me evidence of this.

Start here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but McVeigh didn't bomb in the name of his Christian god.

Neither do most Muslim terrorists (link)but that doesn't stop you from demanding that all Muslims dance to your tune.

Seriously. You're way off the point. Steyn's main point is that there ARE moderate muslims but they aquiesce (sp?) to the militants out of fear. Same as the germans in Nazi germany - most were just afraid to speak out.

Actualy, Steyn, in his usual smarmy way, make sit pretty apparent he doesn't think there are such creatures. He more or less states that moderate Muslims are the creation of media commentators.

Don't post BS links about how terrorism is the west's fault. We all know that's a lefty commentator CBC rip job by now. Come up with something a little more credible buddy.