Jihad in Orlando, Florida

[Doc]

White secular Europe will not defend itself. The rising Islamic Europe will defend itself. I may not have been clear. Europe will defend itself, just not the Europe most people think of.
(...)
European nations will survive, they will just be Islamic states.

If you earnestly think that, then we clearly don't live on the same planet.

Just saw this Unbelievable
2VleTbs1WN0

I don't understand what you find "unbelievable" in this.

It's totally true. America is a very strong nation, it has absorbed 9/11, it would absorb even a series of major terrorist attacks the likes of 9/11. "Absorption" here means being only temporarily and actually very marginally weakened, without permanent long-term damage.

US Population grows by an average 0.7% a year, due to natural growth and immigration. Natural growth alone is 1.4 million people a year, that is 4 millions births minus 2.6 millions deaths. Even 9/11 was less than one day of natural growth of US population.

America as a country has been much more weakened by the ill-advised reaction to 9/11 - namely the Iraq war - than it was by 9/11, speaking of 1 to 2 trillion dollars monetary cost and 4-5,000 military deaths. But even that cost was very small by comparison to population size, and relatively small compared to economy size.

Obama, like him or dislike him, did not say terrorism should not be fought! He just remarked that 9/11, and any other act of terrorism save nuclear only, would be like a mosquito's bite on an elephant.

Also remember, the costliest war of US history was the Secession War, with ca. 600 000 deaths out of a ca. 35 million population - equivalent to 5 millions deaths today. America was wounded by that war - but it healed nonetheless.

It still hasn't healed from that war. But when I said "Unbelievable" I meant it was unbelievable that Obama actually said it. Which puts me in agreement with Woodward.

[Doc]

http://nypost.com/2016/06/13/shooter-us ... ting-apps/

Ex-wife’s bombshell claim: Club shooter was gay

FBI asked her not to talk about it with US media....

[Apollonius]

Thanks so much Alexis for bringing this up for discussion.


I started a thread about this elsewhere but the last time I mentioned Islam on this forum the post was demoted to Hell.


As everyone knows who has followed my posts over the years, I have extremely negative attitudes about Islam. From reading the news and reading history I have those reinforced just about every day, but I haven't turned totally discriminatory, at least until now.


Azari always tells us that until Iranians showed up you couldn't buy an avocado in Vancouver. Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it is true that there are some good Iranian owned grocery stores in town. I used to be a patron. No more. I'm going back to my old Chinese corner store.

[Typhoon]

Paranoid tripe targeting some group ends up in Hell where it belongs.

Nice big brush you've got there.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

Azari always tells us that until Iranians showed up you couldn't buy an avocado in Vancouver. Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it is true that there are some good Iranian owned grocery stores in town. I used to be a patron. No more. I'm going back to my old Chinese corner store.

.

I quit buying in Chinese stores in Vancouver .. Chinese products produced not under "hygienic" circumstances.

Last time I was in "Persia" store in West Van, 80% of customers were non Iranians

And, Iranians in Vancouver far from religion, far as North from South Pole.

.

[Typhoon]

http://nypost.com/2016/06/13/shooter-us ... ting-apps/

Ex-wife’s bombshell claim: Club shooter was gay

FBI asked her not to talk about it with US media....

Already been discussed at length. As I originally suspected and hinted at in my first post.

This psycho was a repressed closeted queer who could not deal with the cognitive dissonance between his needs/desires/wants and the beliefs that he was raised with: be heterosexual, marry a woman, and raise a family.

This stuff is as old as human history.
Repressed individual X denounces/persecutes/kills over behaviour Y in society as he or she resents that other people are doing what X desires
but, in their mind, cannot have.

The Islam and Daesh stuff was most likely a rationalization, a self-justification, for his murderous actions. Almost an afterthought.

[Alexis]

As everyone knows who has followed my posts over the years, I have extremely negative attitudes about Islam. From reading the news and reading history I have those reinforced just about every day, but I haven't turned totally discriminatory, at least until now.

You may find it interesting to look up the Algerian civil war during the 1990s. The short story is that it opposed the government to a suppressed Islamist party who embarked in a fury of terrorism and guerrilla.

Algeria won that war, and its government is not Islamist, Sharia does not reign. However it cost them 150,000 lives out of a 30+ million population, and took a decade.

Now the interesting factoid is that most Algerians are Muslims

That's right: the people who defeated Islamist terrorists and prevented their country to be ruled by Sharia... were mostly Muslims themselves.

Reality is a bit more complex than "all Muslims bad".

This psycho was a repressed closeted queer who could not deal with the cognitive dissonance between his needs/desires/wants and the beliefs that he was raised with: be heterosexual, marry a woman, and raise a family.

This stuff is as old as human history.
Repressed individual X denounces/persecutes/kills over behaviour Y in society as he or she resents that other people are doing what X desires
but, in their mind, cannot have.

The Islam and Daesh stuff was most likely a rationalization, a self-justification, for his murderous actions. Almost an afterthought.

He may well have been a repressed homosexual, but even in this case that would explain little of his actions.

- How many people in America, in all other countries, have homosexual desires that they repress on the denegation mode? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

- How many of them have slaughtered dozens of gays and committed suicide at the same time? One.

The main factor is Jihadist ideology, which systematically condemns homosexuals to death in IS-held territory, may condemn them to death in such countries as Saudi, Pakistan or Afghanistan, and has motivated this killer.

It's entirely possible that his personal reasons to join the IS bunch included repressed homosexuality. That would be only a personal detail. Anyway, it's Jihadist ideology that gave him direction & motivation to become a cold-blooded mass killer instead of just a rather unhappy with himself guy.

[Apollonius]

I quit buying in Chinese stores in Vancouver .. Chinese products produced not under "hygienic" circumstances.

.


You have a point. Maybe I should just go to Safeway.

Last time I was in "Persia" store in West Van, 80% of customers were non Iranians

True.

And, Iranians in Vancouver far from religion, far as North from South Pole. .

I used to think you were right. Now I'm not so sure. One of the women working there was guzzling water and must have noticed that I was looking at how much water she was chugging down in one swig. She told me "It's ramadan", and explained that she'd been fasting all day.

[Apollonius]

Renan revisited - Theodore Dalrymple, New English Review, June 2016
http://www.newenglishreview.org/Theodor ... Revisited/

... Birnbaum is anxious not to equate Islam with terrorism by, for example, claiming that the religion is inherently terroristic. But he does say that the refusal to acknowledge the religious roots of the terrorism is harming the efforts of moderate Moslems to demonstrate to their co-religionists that their interpretation of the religion is wrong and that Islam is perfectly compatible with, and perhaps even requires, such values as non-violence and religious and social tolerance. For them, whom Birnbaum concedes to be in the minority, secularism and Islam are not in conflict; but if, as the left maintains, Islamic terrorism has nothing whatever to do with the religion, then efforts to reform it and combat the false interpretation of it that leads to terrorism are misconceived, unnecessary and beside the point. The left thereby undermines the moderates.

This may be right in the abstract, but it seems to me to miss an important point. The moderates want, in effect, to reduce Islam to a private confession whose ethical standards are more or less those of, say, a fairly liberal Canadian. In other words, they want to preserve Islam in the modern world by liberalising it and making it compatible with Twenty-First century values. From my personal standpoint, this is laudable and even brave in the circumstances; but there is one enormous flaw in the whole scheme. If the ethics of Islam become those of any reasonably decent person in a liberal democracy, what need of Islam at all? It will become merely a collection of rituals whose irrationality and therefore needlessness will soon become clear under the withering fire of rationalist criticism. Its holy book will be shown to be a literary artefact, a compilation, like any other such book (and by no means the best of the genre, either). Soon nothing of Islam will remain.

In this sense, the extremists seem to me to have the better of the argument. They have understood that, where the survival of their religion is concerned, it is all or none. They have seen what happened to religious faith in England and France once such faith was treated as a merely private matter, freely subject to criticism either serious or mocking. And since they are instilled with the notion that there is in Islam an essence that is uniquely precious, they cannot accede to the scheme of the moderates, which will lead to its de facto extinction. The extremists, then, are more consistent, far-seeing and realistic than the moderates, though morally grossly their inferiors.

Islam is uniquely precious to them because they have nothing else to be proud of or to hang on to. Whatever its glorious past, Islam has had a bad past few centuries; it has contributed nothing to the stock of universal advancement. This would not matter but for its claims to unique truth. How is it that a doctrine, or family of doctrines, claiming all-sufficiency, has actually been so barren of contribution to progress? It is Islam, then, or nothing.

Moderate Moslems and moderate leftists share a similar problem. Both believe that their world outlook has something uniquely precious about it, but perceive that in fact the world can get on perfectly well without it. What, then, remains of the precious contribution of their worldview? It is not uncommon in France to see articles about the future of the left now that radically egalitarian transformation of society has been ruled out. What can it argue for now? Recognition of polygamy, incestuous marriage or the rights of necrophiliacs? Whatever it is, it will not be sufficient to justify or support a whole worldview; rather, the left will be reduced to a state of permanent querulousness about this or that supposed injustice, one succeeding another. For underlying the self-conceit of the left is a belief in oppositionism as such: and as it is more blessed to give than to receive, so it is more blessed to oppose what exists than to support or sustain it. The left starts out from a belief in original virtue, especially its own; therefore it must preserve itself and its world outlook, however difficult this may be.

In like fashion, the sophisticated Moslems whom I have met, however decent, civilised and tolerant, believe something similar of Islam, that at its core it has unique value, notwithstanding the chronic backwardness and chaos of most of the Moslem world, what Ernest Renan called a century and a quarter ago ‘the decadence of states governed by Islam, the intellectual sterility of races that derive their culture and education from that religion alone’. No one gives up his basic world outlook lightly or easily, and if there is one thing in which Islam has been brilliantly successful it has been in its instillation in countless generations of people of presuppositions and a world outlook that are difficult for them to abandon later in life.

I've only quoted a small part of this essay. The emphasis is actually on why leftists don't understand the religious impulse, in particular as that relates to Islam, prompted by a book called Un Silence religieux: La gauche face au djihasisme by Jean Birnbaum, literary editor of Le Monde, who makes this point.




Alexis,

Dalrymple also has some interesting comments about the Algerian War of Independence.

[Typhoon]

Renan revisited - Theodore Dalrymple, New English Review, June 2016
http://www.newenglishreview.org/Theodor ... Revisited/

... Birnbaum is anxious not to equate Islam with terrorism by, for example, claiming that the religion is inherently terroristic. But he does say that the refusal to acknowledge the religious roots of the terrorism is harming the efforts of moderate Moslems to demonstrate to their co-religionists that their interpretation of the religion is wrong and that Islam is perfectly compatible with, and perhaps even requires, such values as non-violence and religious and social tolerance. For them, whom Birnbaum concedes to be in the minority, secularism and Islam are not in conflict; but if, as the left maintains, Islamic terrorism has nothing whatever to do with the religion, then efforts to reform it and combat the false interpretation of it that leads to terrorism are misconceived, unnecessary and beside the point. The left thereby undermines the moderates.

This may be right in the abstract, but it seems to me to miss an important point. The moderates want, in effect, to reduce Islam to a private confession whose ethical standards are more or less those of, say, a fairly liberal Canadian. In other words, they want to preserve Islam in the modern world by liberalising it and making it compatible with Twenty-First century values. From my personal standpoint, this is laudable and even brave in the circumstances; but there is one enormous flaw in the whole scheme. If the ethics of Islam become those of any reasonably decent person in a liberal democracy, what need of Islam at all? It will become merely a collection of rituals whose irrationality and therefore needlessness will soon become clear under the withering fire of rationalist criticism. Its holy book will be shown to be a literary artefact, a compilation, like any other such book (and by no means the best of the genre, either). Soon nothing of Islam will remain.

In this sense, the extremists seem to me to have the better of the argument. They have understood that, where the survival of their religion is concerned, it is all or none. They have seen what happened to religious faith in England and France once such faith was treated as a merely private matter, freely subject to criticism either serious or mocking. And since they are instilled with the notion that there is in Islam an essence that is uniquely precious, they cannot accede to the scheme of the moderates, which will lead to its de facto extinction. The extremists, then, are more consistent, far-seeing and realistic than the moderates, though morally grossly their inferiors.

Islam is uniquely precious to them because they have nothing else to be proud of or to hang on to. Whatever its glorious past, Islam has had a bad past few centuries; it has contributed nothing to the stock of universal advancement. This would not matter but for its claims to unique truth. How is it that a doctrine, or family of doctrines, claiming all-sufficiency, has actually been so barren of contribution to progress? It is Islam, then, or nothing.

Moderate Moslems and moderate leftists share a similar problem. Both believe that their world outlook has something uniquely precious about it, but perceive that in fact the world can get on perfectly well without it. What, then, remains of the precious contribution of their worldview? It is not uncommon in France to see articles about the future of the left now that radically egalitarian transformation of society has been ruled out. What can it argue for now? Recognition of polygamy, incestuous marriage or the rights of necrophiliacs? Whatever it is, it will not be sufficient to justify or support a whole worldview; rather, the left will be reduced to a state of permanent querulousness about this or that supposed injustice, one succeeding another. For underlying the self-conceit of the left is a belief in oppositionism as such: and as it is more blessed to give than to receive, so it is more blessed to oppose what exists than to support or sustain it. The left starts out from a belief in original virtue, especially its own; therefore it must preserve itself and its world outlook, however difficult this may be.

In like fashion, the sophisticated Moslems whom I have met, however decent, civilised and tolerant, believe something similar of Islam, that at its core it has unique value, notwithstanding the chronic backwardness and chaos of most of the Moslem world, what Ernest Renan called a century and a quarter ago ‘the decadence of states governed by Islam, the intellectual sterility of races that derive their culture and education from that religion alone’. No one gives up his basic world outlook lightly or easily, and if there is one thing in which Islam has been brilliantly successful it has been in its instillation in countless generations of people of presuppositions and a world outlook that are difficult for them to abandon later in life.

I've only quoted a small part of this essay. The emphasis is actually on why leftists don't understand the religious impulse, in particular as that relates to Islam, prompted by a book called Un Silence religieux: La gauche face au djihasisme by Jean Birnbaum, literary editor of Le Monde, who makes this point.


Alexis,

Dalrymple also has some interesting comments about the Algerian War of Independence.

Yawn. Every religious or secular belief taken to an extreme is insane.

Islam is hardly unique in this regard. Christian sects have been doing the same to each other and to Jews for centuries.
Recall the very recent Troubles in N Ireland and the bombings in Britain.

Muslims and Hindus have killed millions of each other, many in the past century.

Stalnists, Maoists, and Fascists did the same.

Buddhists and Shintoists are certainly not exempt.

Islam's current issues it that there exist various fundamentalist groups who are see their beliefs threatened by modernity based on the Enlightenment.

If the West was serious, then they would stop supporting Saudi Arabia, read Turkey the riot act with regards to the Kurds, and partition that artificial construct that is Iraq along rational borders. For starters.

[Typhoon]

. . .
I used to think you were right. Now I'm not so sure. One of the women working there was guzzling water and must have noticed that I was looking at how much water she was chugging down in one swig. She told me "It's ramadan", and explained that she'd been fasting all day.

Very scary. I trust you reported her to the RCMP.

[Mr. Perfect]

Paranoid tripe targeting some group ends up in Hell where it belongs.

Nice big brush you've got there.

Unless it's Republicans .

[Mr. Perfect]

Already been discussed at length. As I originally suspected and hinted at in my first post.

This psycho was a repressed closeted queer who could not deal with the cognitive dissonance between his needs/desires/wants and the beliefs that he was raised with: be heterosexual, marry a woman, and raise a family.

This stuff is as old as human history.
Repressed individual X denounces/persecutes/kills over behaviour Y in society as he or she resents that other people are doing what X desires
but, in their mind, cannot have.

The Islam and Daesh stuff was most likely a rationalization, a self-justification, for his murderous actions. Almost an afterthought.

Pure speculation based on your biases.

[Typhoon]

Already been discussed at length. As I originally suspected and hinted at in my first post.

This psycho was a repressed closeted queer who could not deal with the cognitive dissonance between his needs/desires/wants and the beliefs that he was raised with: be heterosexual, marry a woman, and raise a family.

This stuff is as old as human history.
Repressed individual X denounces/persecutes/kills over behaviour Y in society as he or she resents that other people are doing what X desires
but, in their mind, cannot have.

The Islam and Daesh stuff was most likely a rationalization, a self-justification, for his murderous actions. Almost an afterthought.

Pure speculation based on your biases.

Of course, I was not privy to this psycho's thoughts.

Noting a pattern that repeated itself throughout history,
as Shakespeare famously observed

Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand!
Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back.
Thou hotly lusts to use her in that kind

Show me someone who is actively ranting on about "homosexuals" and I'll bet that he's a repressed closeted queer.

[Typhoon]

Paranoid tripe targeting some group ends up in Hell where it belongs.

Nice big brush you've got there.

Unless it's Republicans .

No worries. Republicans also get to go to Hell

[Mr. Perfect]

Here at otnot don't we know it.

[Typhoon]

Here at otnot don't we know it.

Poor Republicrats, persecuted everywhere.

[Mr. Perfect]

Already been discussed at length. As I originally suspected and hinted at in my first post.

This psycho was a repressed closeted queer who could not deal with the cognitive dissonance between his needs/desires/wants and the beliefs that he was raised with: be heterosexual, marry a woman, and raise a family.

This stuff is as old as human history.
Repressed individual X denounces/persecutes/kills over behaviour Y in society as he or she resents that other people are doing what X desires
but, in their mind, cannot have.

The Islam and Daesh stuff was most likely a rationalization, a self-justification, for his murderous actions. Almost an afterthought.

Pure speculation based on your biases.

Of course, I was not privy to this psycho's thoughts.

Noting a pattern that repeated itself throughout history,
as Shakespeare famously observed

Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand!
Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back.
Thou hotly lusts to use her in that kind

Show me someone who is actively ranting on about "homosexuals" and I'll bet that he's a repressed closeted queer.

Cool story bro. But it's all speculation.

[Mr. Perfect]

Here at otnot don't we know it.

Poor Republicrats, persecuted everywhere.

Yeah. If we could ever get a fair fight we'd end the liberals for good.

[Typhoon]

Here at otnot don't we know it.

Poor Republicrats, persecuted everywhere.

Yeah. If we could ever get a fair fight we'd end the liberals for good.

The hope and wish of every religious and secular extremist from the beginning of civilization.

[Mr. Perfect]

I think you need some fresh air dude. Nothing wrong with wanting a fair fight.

[Mr. Perfect]

In the meantime a Democrat gay Muslim murders a other gay liberals and somehow it's the fault of the Republican party. Beam me up Scotty.

[Typhoon]

In the meantime a Democrat gay Muslim murders a other gay liberals and somehow it's the fault of the Republican party. Beam me up Scotty.

Label much?

[Typhoon]

I think you need some fresh air dude. Nothing wrong with wanting a fair fight.

Nothing fair in wishing to "end" people one perceives as one's enemies.

Raises, er, the obvious point: is it Republicrat impotence, incompetence, or both in their inability to "fight"?

[Typhoon]

. . .

Dalrymple also has some interesting comments about the Algerian War of Independence.

Pontecorvo's film about the war is remarkable.

y-7j4WVTgWc