Militant Islam - A People of Beggars, Extorters and Takers

[jbg]

Right now, I am reading McCullough's excellent biography of John Adams, the US's second President. The portion of the book I excerpted occurred in 1785, long before George W. Bush, the State of Israel, exiled Palestinians or any of the current du jure outrages of the day.

From a parsing of this book, and websites (link) describing the events, we can see that even then, the militant Muslims were engaged in threatending and conducting savagery for their own game, using religion as the justification or motive. Fast forward to the 1973-4 Oil Embargo, the attack on the USS Cole, and September 11.

The faces change. The course of history, and the conduct of people, does not.

From MuCullough’s John Adams:

On a chill evening in Fegruary came what Adams took to be an opening. At the end of a round of ambassadorial "visits", he stopped to pay his respects to a new member of the diplomatic corps in London, His Excellency Abdrahaman, envoy of the hSultan of Tripoli

****

The Conversation turned to business. America was a great nation, declared His Excellency (Abdrahaman), but unfortunately a state of war existed between America and Tripoli. Adams questioned how that could be, given that there had been no injury, insult, or provocation on either side. The Barbary States were soverigns of the Mediterranean all the same, he was told, and without a treaty of peace there could be no peace between Tripoli and Ammerica. His Excellency was prepared to arrange such a treaty.

…

“Time was critical, Adams was informed. The sooner peace was made between America and the Barbary States the better. Were a treaty delayed, it would be more difficult to make. A war between Christian and Christian was mild, a war between Muslim and Christian would be horrible.

…

At the meeting with Ambassador Abdrahaman, Adams and Jefferson were told that peace with Tripoli would cost 30,000 guineas for his employers, as His Excellency put it, plus 3,000 pounds sterling for himself. Payments were to be in cash on delivery of the treaty signed by his sovereign. The two Americans portested that the figure was too high. His Excellency assured them it was his lowest price and allowed that peace with all Barbary States might cost from 200,000 to 300,000 guineas.”

[Figleaf]

Are we to understand from the title of your post that you consider "Militant Islam" to be "A people"?

[jbg]

Are we to understand from the title of your post that you consider "Militant Islam" to be "A people"?

I'm not sure if they're a people, a death cult, or a zoological collection.

[Figleaf]

Are we to understand from the title of your post that you consider "Militant Islam" to be "A people"?

I'm not sure if they're a people, a death cult, or a zoological collection.

Well, 'A people' is certainly an unorthodox usage to refer to a political faction.

[August1991]

Well, 'A people' is certainly an unorthodox usage to refer to a political faction.

Figleaf, you are displaying your politically correct, 21st century Canadian education whilst jbg is posing a question of a deeper sort.

I fear Figleaf that soon your type of education will not be good defence against this world's greater questions.

From the Halls of Montezuma,

To the Shores of Tripoli

[jbg]

Figleaf, you are displaying your politically correct, 21st century Canadian education whilst jbg is posing a question of a deeper sort.

***

From the Halls of Montezuma,

To the Shores of Tripoli

Spot on. My worry is that this fundamental antagonism with Islam will be quite difficult to resolve peacefully. They consider themselves entitled to suport by the world, for their holy objectives.

And many, including myself, are not interested in supporting them.

[Guest chilipeppers]

Figleaf, you are displaying your politically correct, 21st century Canadian education whilst jbg is posing a question of a deeper sort.

***

From the Halls of Montezuma,

To the Shores of Tripoli

Spot on. My worry is that this fundamental antagonism with Islam will be quite difficult to resolve peacefully. They consider themselves entitled to suport by the world, for their holy objectives.

And many, including myself, are not interested in supporting them.

Agreed but we would be willing to support a peaceful Palestine.

[Remiel]

Spot on. My worry is that this fundamental antagonism with Islam will be quite difficult to resolve peacefully. They consider themselves entitled to suport by the world, for their holy objectives.

And many, including myself, are not interested in supporting them.

And yet your choice of words for titles sounds like nothing so much as a variation on the anti-Jewish propaganda from before the Second World War. You're not helping your argument by failing to notice the details like that.

[kuzadd]

And yet your choice of words for titles sounds like nothing so much as a variation on the anti-Jewish propaganda from before the Second World War. You're not helping your argument by failing to notice the details like that.

That would not be a first on this forum given the use of the term "the Muslim problem" drop Muslim, put Jew in it's place and you have Hitler's rhetoric, which I pointed out to sharkman( who was the one who said this) at that time.

[jbg]

And yet your choice of words for titles sounds like nothing so much as a variation on the anti-Jewish propaganda from before the Second World War. You're not helping your argument by failing to notice the details like that.

The accusation about the Jews was that they were too successful economically, politically and socially. I am making exactly the opposite argument about the radical Muslims.

[WestViking]

Spot on. My worry is that this fundamental antagonism with Islam will be quite difficult to resolve peacefully. They consider themselves entitled to suport by the world, for their holy objectives.

And many, including myself, are not interested in supporting them.

And yet your choice of words for titles sounds like nothing so much as a variation on the anti-Jewish propaganda from before the Second World War. You're not helping your argument by failing to notice the details like that.

That is hardly an accurate observation unless you can show some parallel to Jews not just threatening other ethnic groups, but undertaking aggressive acts to carry out those threats in the period 1919 to 1939. I think you also have to consider the several wars Arabs have mounted against Israel.

There are no parallels in modern history. Pre-WW II, Jews were accused of things they had not done. That is far different than holding Arabs accountable for what they have done and openly threaten to do.

[kuzadd]

And yet your choice of words for titles sounds like nothing so much as a variation on the anti-Jewish propaganda from before the Second World War. You're not helping your argument by failing to notice the details like that.

The accusation about the Jews was that they were too successful economically, politically and socially. I am making exactly the opposite argument about the radical Muslims.

Perhaps that is why, when people are unaware, or think that was the case , they use the language that they do. Without realizing it is the language of propaganda.

The Jewish people were subjected to far greater propaganda derision, then you are aware, or are letting on, I don't know.

Propaganda was delivered, via the media, speeches, and in churches, just like today.

Everything about Jews was derided, there appearance, there clothes, there living quarters, there practices, everything, they were repeatedly presented as "threats to Western Culture"

Today it is Muslims that get this constant barrage of derision, about everything, there clothes, there customs, there religions, there practices, and there alleged threat to Western Culture.

What absolutely amazed me beside the fact that I actually saw someone say "The Muslim problem" was that I was the only one, who caught that nasty bit of propaganda.

The alleged supporters of Jewish people ( who are really the users of Jewish people), let that one go right on by.

I wrote to the moderator of the forum, wrt the use and dissemination of propaganda, but, it seems quite accptable here,

Failure to recognize propaganda, and repeatedly promulgating derision/ of a group of people is problematic.

In fact the Nazi regime used propaganda effectively to mobilize the German population to support its wars of conquest until the very end of the regime.

sound at all familiar??

[scribblet]

That is hardly an accurate observation unless you can show some parallel to Jews not just threatening other ethnic groups, but undertaking aggressive acts to carry out those threats in the period 1919 to 1939. I think you also have to consider the several wars Arabs have mounted against Israel.

There are no parallels in modern history. Pre-WW II, Jews were accused of things they had not done. That is far different than holding Arabs accountable for what they have done and openly threaten to do.

Ah, but they are not doing these things you see, its all a conspiracy theory didn'tcha you

[Remiel]

That is hardly an accurate observation unless you can show some parallel to Jews not just threatening other ethnic groups, but undertaking aggressive acts to carry out those threats in the period 1919 to 1939. I think you also have to consider the several wars Arabs have mounted against Israel.

There are no parallels in modern history. Pre-WW II, Jews were accused of things they had not done. That is far different than holding Arabs accountable for what they have done and openly threaten to do.

Not a parallel, but in the realm of propaganda, making unfounded accusations against a group, and making generalizations that could be extended to groups upon which they would be unfounded accusations are related tactics.

I hardly think jbg would be impressed if someone were to make a reference to the " People " of Militant Judaism. Some might call it a veiled attack on all Jews if someone here were to start decrying Kach and Kahane Chai on a regular basis.

[jbg]

I hardly think jbg would be impressed if someone were to make a reference to the " People " of Militant Judaism. Some might call it a veiled attack on all Jews if someone here were to start decrying Kach and Kahane Chai on a regular basis.

Those kind of people are treated as criminals in Israel, just as anywhere else. You talk about "militant Judaism". Are Jews flying planes into buildings, plotting to blow up airports, etc. Does Israel, and do Jewish neighborhoods, resemble rubble-strewn ruins?

The Jews were persecuted as outsiders, who Europeans worried about "taking over". The Jewish threat, however, was not through violence; it was through overachievement. The Christians had a ready alternative to Holocausting them; compete with them. That they chose atrocities was their choice; it was not dictated by need for safety and security.

[M.Dancer]

........and do Jewish neighborhoods, resemble rubble-strewn ruins?

Funny you should say that. I live in aprdominantly Jewish neighbourhood (Forest Hill, Toronto) and with all the construction of McMansions on every corner.........

[Remiel]

Those kind of people are treated as criminals in Israel, just as anywhere else. You talk about "militant Judaism". Are Jews flying planes into buildings, plotting to blow up airports, etc. Does Israel, and do Jewish neighborhoods, resemble rubble-strewn ruins?

Well, there was the Beirut airport. Though I suppose that wasn't plotting to blow it up, but actually blowing it up. And many of those rubble strewn ruins in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon were created by the IDF, and of course that terrorist plot to blow up that school of Arab girls...

However, you're the one who started the thread trying to demonize people. And it is not because you are Jewish, or American, or a lawyer, or whatever. It's because you insist on acting like an ass. And asses, as we all know, are not a scarce commodity, in any culture.

I mean, is it supposed to be some kind of surprise that there are like 115 times as many Muslim asses as there are Jewish asses, because there are 115 times as many Muslims as there are Jews?

[Catchme]

JBG, you are hardly an honest broker in your commentary against Muslims.

And in fact, in case you all did not notice, you all have an unhealthy sick obsession with trying to stir hatred against Muslims, there does not need to be every other thread here being a hate rant against Muslims.

I mean really, you people, trying endlessly to spew hate, get self aware and realize you are making mockeries of yourselves.

[jbg]

The two above-responses, being mostly name-calling, don't need a response.

[scribblet]

JBG, you are hardly an honest broker in your commentary against Muslims.

And in fact, in case you all did not notice, you all have an unhealthy sick obsession with trying to stir hatred against Muslims, there does not need to be every other thread here being a hate rant against Muslims.

I mean really, you people, trying endlessly to spew hate, get self aware and realize you are making mockeries of yourselves.

JBJ is fair in his comments and rarely attacks only responds. You however have an unhealthy sick obsession with stirring hatred up against Christians, and making spurious comments in general, you can't point a finger at anyone. Your comments make a mockery of anything 'progressive'.

[Remiel]

Perhaps, if you call one sentence out of eight " most " . When you compare the word " ass " though to words like " beggar " , " extorter " and " taker " I am left wondering when you suddenly decided to set the bar so high.

You seem to object to me referring to far-right radical terrorist whackjobs in Israel as " Militant Judaism " and yet you seem all right with referring to authoritarian radical terrorist whackjobs in Arabia as " Militant Islam " . Should I be offended if people refer to far-right radical racist whackjobs in the West as " Militant Christianity " ?

Many refer to Islam itself being the cause of all of this terribleness, yet those militant Jews are driven on by the notion of " Eretz Israel " , and justify their killing of Arabs as cleansing Jewish land, and that it was justifiable to kill Rabin because he was committing a religious crime by giving away land that was part of the Covenant.

[Catchme]

Scribblet, is very unfair in his commentary regarding Muslims and he very seldom addreses anything else. Oh except for his thread about himself.

Moreover, I never foster hate and especially not regarding Christians. Only a Domionist would believe they are Christians, when in fact they are anything BUT Christians.

[scribblet]

Scribblet, is very unfair in his commentary regarding Muslims and he very seldom addreses anything else. Oh except for his thread about himself.

Moreover, I never foster hate and especially not regarding Christians. Only a Domionist would believe they are Christians, when in fact they are anything BUT Christians.

Scribblet has been posting mainly in this forum because the Federal forum is particularly boring right now, same old same old. Which thread about himself? Besides, I think the same can be said of catchme.

OOh those scary Dominionists, just another term used to smear a group of people - do these so called dominionists know they are - dominionists. Can an agnostic be a dominionist - well scribblet doesn't go to church so is a bit behind with the plotting to take over the country.

Using the term dominionists is similar to people who use the term Zionists, it is simply a perjorative used strictly for polemic reasons.

[kuzadd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

Dominionism: seems to have grown right out of christianity itself, regardless of what scribbs falsely claims.

Dominionism describes a movement among socially conservative Christians to gain influence or control over secular civil government through political action — seeking either a nation governed by Christians or a nation governed by a Christian understanding of biblical law.

The term "dominionism" originated in the late 1980s to describe the activities of portions of the Christian Right in the United States; but has been used to discuss similar trends in Canada, and several European countries. Some writers argue that the most militant theocratic forms of "dominionism" have had a direct influence upon the more moderate Christian Right; and that dominionism in general raises issues regarding separation of church and state in the United States.

The movement emerged in the late 1970s and 1980s, sparked in part by a series of books and films featuring Francis A. Schaeffer, a Presbyterian pastor and evangelist, popular Evangelical apologist, and founder of L'Abri, a Christian community in Switzerland. His book, film and lecture series, "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?", co-authored with C. Everett Koop, toured Christian colleges and churches in the early 1980s. Panels of ethicists and scholars presented the films, fielding questions from audiences, raising the alarm that, through Christian inattention, Western Civilization had slipped its Judeo-Christian moorings, drifting into a "post-Christian era", under the sway of a secular civil religion that Schaeffer called "secular humanism". The landmark 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade served as Schaeffer's iconic portrait of the radical cheapening of human life which he predicted must accompany this cultural shift, producing a culture increasingly bent on self-destruction. His tract, "A Christian Manifesto" called upon Christians to directly resist these influences, in the public sphere.

Frederick Clarkson, Sara Diamond, and Chip Berlet say that Schaeffer's philosophically, theologically and politically energized evangelicalism influenced a diverse spectrum of theological conservatives: Jerry Falwell, Timothy LaHaye, John W. Whitehead, and others. Although they represent different theological and political ideas, Dominionists assert a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society"

Gosh I have noticed the term "humanist" is practically associated with the anti-christ amongst some here, or that obsession with the "left" "liberals" or "lefty liberals" however these people define this this labelling, the only conclusion I can come to is these terms are used in a derogatory manner, towards anyone that does not agree explicity with what the 'christian/right/dominionists' themselves believe.

another good place for info on the dominionist 'christians'

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/Di...mInAmerica.html

[kuzadd]

the word dominionism is NOT a PEJORATIVE either, it is a name, of a movement, born out of an already 'right' christianity, to a more fanatical , theocratic version of christianity.

Despite scriblett's 'claims'