Friday, January 25, 2008

About the “Patriotic Party”

Since I’m already knee-deep in ordure from the last few months of controversy, I might as well wade in a little further and see if I can get in above my hips.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The latest word, according to EU Business, is that a pan-European party has been formed by four political parties: Le Pen’s Front National of France, the Flemish independence party Vlaams Belang, the Bulgarian party Attaca, and the Austrian Freedom Party led by Heinz-Christian Strache.

This European-wide party has announced no platform or objectives to counter the Islamization of Europe, to oppose anti-Semitism, or to support Israel. It would be helpful if they were to make their positions on these issues clear. A detailed platform including all three of those objectives would be most welcome; it would demonstrate a policy leadership for all parties across the political spectrum.

From EU Business:

Right-wing nationalist leaders from four EU member states announced Friday in Vienna the creation of a broad new European “patriotic” party by November.

The leaders of Austria’s Freedom Party, France’s National Front, the Bulgarian Attaca party and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang told a press conference that they had agreed to set up the new party as a counter-balance to other political forces in Europe.

“We say: patriots of all the countries of Europe, unite! Because only together will we solve our problems,” Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache told journalists.

“European parties receive great benefits within the union and so we believe there is no reason nationalists shouldn’t also have a formation like the Socialists, the Christian Democrats, the liberals or the Greens,” the National Front’s Jean-Marie Le Pen told AFP.

The announcement comes months after the demise of the barely one-year-old extreme right group in the European Parliament, “Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty” (ITS), to which several of the founders of the new party belonged.

[…]

Unlike a European parliamentary group, which according to EU law requires at least 20deputies from five different states to exist, a party only needs members from seven states.

“Our goal is clear, we want more than 10 parties as members and ideally one party from each EU country,” Strache told journalists.

He said he and his partners were in talks with parties in several countries, including non-EU member states, but refused to give any names until decisions were finalised.

The new European party is expected to be set up on November 15.

Before the inevitable ton of bricks comes down on my head, I have to say this:
- - - - - - - - -
The Front National, the FPÖ and Attaca were not invited to the Counterjihad Brussels 2007 conference. They have not published policies that are specifically and publicly pro-Israel, they do not have a history of opposing Holocaust Denial and anti-Semitism, and they do not have a consistent history of anti-Islamization.

Vlaams Belang has all of these specific positions and did attend the conference.

In their dealings outside of Flanders and within EU the political labyrinth, VB is engaging in the same kinds of compromises and alliances that any political party has to make in order to survive and achieve electoral success. I don’t expect that all of their chosen allies will be palatable to me — but then again, I’m not trying to run a political party.

As long as Vlaams Belang continues to be a vigorous opponent of Islamization, a supporter of Israel, and a staunch denouncer of anti-Semitism, then I will continue to give it a favorable hearing.

Our primary mission here at Gates of Vienna is opposition to Islamization, with an emphasis on the incompatibility of sharia with constitutional law.

We also support Israel’s absolute right to exist as a Jewish state within defensible borders, and we oppose all forms of Jew-hatred and anti-Semitism.

In other words, as we have said since the beginning, we stand with the Jews.

We also decry the massive genocides against Christians and other minorities in Muslim countries, the treatment of women under Islamic law, the violence and tyranny endemic to Muslim states, and all the other outrages and injustices perpetrated in the name of Islam.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Overt anti-Semitism and an ambivalence towards Islamism make some European political parties unacceptable allies for the Counterjihad. Vlaams Belang and others may find it expedient to build bridges to them, but the policies of such parties will keep us from supporting them.

Europe’s great misfortune over the last few decades has been the absolute anathema pronounced upon conservatives and the opponents of the EU by the ruling elites. The predictable result is that many worthy anti-jihad activists are being forced into the arms of the extreme right, since all other political groupings now consider them untouchable.

One of our jobs here is to make an ethically acceptable and broad-based case for the Counterjihad, and thereby ameliorate the pernicious effects of this European “cordon sanitaire”.

34 comments:

laller said...

I've been babbling on about "goals" here and Jihadwatch. What I'm starting to realize is that people are scared to commit to tangible goals. I can understand why: the PC crowd is scary, and they're even to be found among the "anti-jihadis".

Is "eternal vigilance" really the only acceptable outcome of the "counter jihad"? 'Cause that's what all the "tongue in cheek" rhetoric really amounts to: Live with the threat of muslim terrorism, live with the threat of islamisation, live with the threat of becoming a minority etc., and remember to keep a close eye on the muslim community and don't give an inch, atleast as long as you're able to...

I really wish they'd just drop the ambiguity, drop the "prim and proper" facade and come out and say what they believe the tangible goals of the "counter-jihad" should be. But fear is a powerful motivator to remain ambiguous, I guess.

Laine said...

Is it time to wonder whether European conservatives like Muslim moderates are hiding out somewhere with the unicorns? Both groups are talked about, but never appear in significant numbers.

The evidence is accumulating that moderate Muslims (defined as willing to live in democratic societies under western rule of law, tolerant of other beliefs and not striving for a world caliphate or sharia law) cannot exist according to the present and proper tenets of Islam. They are actually the radicals, requiring a reformation of Islam.

It appears that they are also a small minority. Muslimsagainstsharia who posted here recently says their polling shows 25%. It may be even less, using a robust criterion such as would they hide a non-Muslim in their homes when Islam is in the ascendancy.

However, the more critical factor is the missing European conservatives. If they have significant numbers, they should be able to impact whatever party they decide to start out with, even the nominal Conservatives in Britain, for example. The fact that they have let the venerable Conservative party wander into left field instead of taking it back and are reduced to considering a far right party with issues means their numbers are very small and they are weak. The hope that they will be able to dilute such a party and shear it of its rough edges may be misplaced.

Where are the conservatives, meaning thinking moral individuals with initiative and courage who are willing to fight to keep the Enlightenment? Have European Socialist policies and education/indoctrination created anxious sheep within only two or three generations? The incapacitating poison of socialism is there for all to see.

Laine said...

And the wolf is descending.

Anonymous said...

Good ol' Charles of LGF just posted something about this, I see... yet more VB bashing (both in his post and the comments). That lot certainly is persistent, I must say. And he still did not admit his mistake about the BNP. He only says that the VB "denied connections" with the BNP. In the dictionary, "deny" is defined as "refusing to admit the truth". There's no denial here: it's a fact. THE BNP WAS NOT INVOLVED WITH CITIES AGAINST ISLAMIZATION!!!!!! I don't know how much clearer I (and those who agree with me) can be. If anyone who is reading this still doesn't believe me, do some research. The VB doesn't not mention it on their website, nor do any news sources (except that Australian one that Charles cited). The BNP does not mention it on their website, either.

Baron, I couldn't agree with you more. I know very little about the Freedom Party of Austria and virtually nothing about France's National Front or Attaca (I've never even heard of Attaca). Personally, I think the VB knows what they are doing and honestly, if this is what it takes to successfully keep the Counterjihad going, so be it. It's not like the VB is allying with the NPD or something (correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the NPD pretty Neo-Nazi-ish?). And anyway, just because the VB allies themselves with certain parties does not mean they support what those parties stand for.

I'm just so sick of this vendetta. What I find amusing is how the "other side" accused us of prolonging the feud when, in actuality, Baron Bodissey stopped posting about this ages ago... Charles is the one who keeps bringing it up! Ah, the irony.

AngleofRepose said...

Oh botha.

/Winnie the Pooh

Gaeidhil said...

Well Natalie I can't imagine that you haven't seen some Jane Goodall documentary on the dynamics of simian social groups and some of the less than civil behavior exhibited in the pursuit of social cohesion. Something along the lines of ostracism by dismemberment. You know the familiar sequence of targeted taunting that builds to a crescendo of bludgeoning and subsequent dismemberment. The maniac leaping about and shrieking is only quelled when everyone in the group has a had a chance to daub their digits in the hemorrhagic aftermath and gaze quizzically into the ruptured stump of their outcast cousin. At some point it will all quiet down in due course and be replaced by standard repertoire of group grooming and auto-exploration.

Imperialistu' said...

Well, that's what I call a rather bad company. I'm surprised there's no word from our national-comunists, Romania Mare.

Afonso Henriques said...

"This European-wide party has announced no platform or objectives to counter the Islamization of Europe, to oppose anti-Semitism, or to support Israel."

I know you have to keep it low and P.C. Baron but the truth is, Europe will fall or came under Nationalism.
As the Nationalistic parties get more abrangent, they will atract more people and become more mainstream.

You identify three points:
Islamisation of Europe
Anti Semitism
Pro Israel(ism)

A Nationalistic European Party is obviously fighting the islamisation of Europe, no doubt.
But a party of this kind can never be strongly pro Israel, why?
Most European countries (excluding the big 4) have no real power in dealing with Israel. The people simply does not consider it a priority. Don't get me wrong, I stand with the Jews too but it is only my opinion, I don't want my government to be involved in that situation, I hope they have better things to do.
Concearning to Anti Semitism, a Nationalistic European Party must not care about the anti Semitism or pro Semitism.

You say that Europe is now too multicultural but for much less Jews were extreminated here. And I am not talking just of Hitler, it is much older than that, you can not see the Jews as innocent children being exterminated by an evil monster.

In the V century, in my own Country the new royal dinasty of Germanic origin imposed a law in which all the Jews were thereof slaves because of immoral actions that prejudiced the people.
One millenium later, during the XVI century the Inquisition exterminated near all the Jews. They were expelled to Morocco, Brazil and the Netherlands. Many of the Sephardite Jews living in those places (if not the gross majority) descend from Portuguese based Jewery.

The Nationalist European party can not be deffending the Jews, that does not mean that they will persecuute them either.

Ask Fjordman if you want but now it is clear, if Europe survive it will be because of Nationalists and Patriots and mainly because of those hiding Nationalists and Patriots who will turn out to the light when the time is needed.

I stand with this new party.

Baron Bodissey said...

Afonso --

I'm not being "low and P.C." My natural inclination is to support the Jews whole-heartedly; I'm a philo-Semite. I believe that the Jews form the moral and ethical core of Western Civilization.

But there is a strong pragmatic reason for the Counterjihad to support Israel. Anti-Semites eventually choose to side with Islam, because the Jew-hatred they hold in common is more important than anything else.

It happened in Britain a couple of years ago, when one of the skinhead anti-Semitic groups "flipped" and announced its support for the Muslim Brotherhood. The group had previously opposed all immigrant groups, but awakened to realize that they were in fundamental agreement with their Muslim brethren.

So there are solid practical reasons to support Israel -- the only reliable democratic ally against the jihad in the Middle East -- as well as moral ones.

ENGLISHMAN said...

If you were drowning in the ocean,would you ask your rescuer his politics before you grasped his hand to climb aboard the boat?

Imperialistu' said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

Imperialistu' --

Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. Your comment violated the last of these rules. We keep a PG-13 blog, and exclude foul language, explicit descriptions, and epithets. This is why I deleted your comment.

Use of asterisks is an appropriate alternative.

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

Imperialistu' said...

We are not drowning yet, englishman, so your question is pointless.

Afonso > You're severely mistaken. These people will not save us. Nationalism and patriotic. Oh, come on! I could give you a list of names of people who call themselves nationalists and patriotis. Ever heard of Vadim Tudoar? A very vocal loser in Romanian national politics. He calls himself a patriot, but he doesn't care about other Romanians; he's only interested in hating Hungaryans, gypsies and - of course - JEWS (even though we don't have 1000 jews in Romania). So excuse me, but i don't give a f*** about this kind of "nationalists".

Anonymous said...

That's the whole thing, though: Western civilization is metaphorically "drowning in the ocean". We are slowly becoming Islamized and a lot of people are too stupid to realize it.

I think the most important thing right now is resisting Islam. That is something to think about when we make our alliances. I'm not saying I support the National Front in France, but often you have to do things you'd rather not do to win a war. It's just something to think about.

ole said...

To Alfonso Henriqes :
So far, Israel is the most powerfull and dangerous enemy that Islaam has on this planet, even if this ofcourse rarely is said by politicans.
My hope is that in the not-so-far-future Israel will be capable of and willing to helping the newly reborn european anti-jihad moovement overcome some of its birth-pains.
This help, if it should be wanted, might be more effective than you can imagine today.
As an examble there's atleast one DEAD dutch filmmaker who could have benefited nicely from a little professional help security-wise.
The Israely interrest in this lies in the long term prevention of the creatiion of a muslim europe, a goal I believe mr Henriques can agree with.
It would be stupid not to cooperate because of medieval prejustices from one side or another,and believe me ,there's enough of those on the Israeli side as well.

Paardestaart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paardestaart said...

I am with Nathalie, I guess - islamization and the EU are the most pressing questions at hand.
And since the accepted politial parties do almost nothing against the disappearance of Europe, both through the one ànd the other method, we may find ourselves bien étonnés de nous trouver en doubtful company
I draw the line though on Israel and the jews - that is: if Israel doesn't end obliterate itself by refusing to stand up for it's national existence..

ScottSA said...

There will be a slow sea change as the situation becomes more urgent, to the realization that allies are better than enemies no matter how bad their table manners may be.

At this point Charles can afford to take the high moral road, because frankly he runs a talkshop better suited to middle aged wannabes who like to thump their chests in the perfect safety of North American dens. It's as someone here mentioned not long ago...popping up from behind rocks and yelling bravado at the enemy is all very well, but as soon as someone actually tries to DO something, the bellowers all run away under the excuse that the good guys are really bad guys.

There will come a day when the realization begins to dawn on Charles that this is not a theoretical problem to deal with "someday." Probably sooner rather than later, because this is not a static problem; it's one that gets worse with every boat that arrives.

Aside from the general catcalling and brave rating-button-pushing that goes on over there as soon as someone disagrees with the herd position, the only solution I've seen to the ongoing mass swamping of the people and culture of Europe is "send a letter to your congressman." That says all that needs to be said about the alternative to picking distasteful bedfellows, in my opinion.

I agree with Baron's position on Israel, but as long as alleged fascists are against mass immigration, they are on my side of this thing. One hopes that they learned at least something from Hitler...a two front war is really really dumb, and if they are going to fight a war, they ought to pick either Islam or Judaism to fight...not both, because that would just be silly. So far they are making the right choice. So far they are on my side.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

You should say which jews you stand with, and which jews you think these groups should stand with. We have the few who resist tyranny, and then you have the rest, racing towards Dhimmitude, trying to drag Christian Capitalists along with them. There are Jews who mean "never again", but then you have the jews who represent muslim terrorists, pro-bono if need be, in suing the government, suspicious airline passengers, or in trying to procure "get out of jail free" cards for Gitmo.

There are Jews who just wish to live in peace as a people, and Jews who are bent on Jewicide and will drag us with them.

Zenster said...

Baron: I'm not being "low and P.C." My natural inclination is to support the Jews whole-heartedly; I'm a philo-Semite. I believe that the Jews form the moral and ethical core of Western Civilization.

Even casting aside how Jews contributed the "Judeo" part of Judeo-Christianity, it would still be vital to recognize them as one of the sole—if not the sole—Middle East democracy. A simple fact distinguishes Israel from its enemies.

THERE ARE MOSQUES IN ISRAEL. THERE ARE NO SYNAGOGUES IN SAUDI ARABIA.

This one single feature—namely freedom of religion—makes Israel worth supporting. The MME (Muslim Middle East) must always be tarred for its lack of religious freedom as this best serves to expose Islam's true political nature. Far more disturbing is the lack of internal cohesion in Israeli society with respect to national survival but that is grist for another discussion.

It is encouraging to see European nationalism emerge from the shadows. Only by presenting a relatively united front will the Continent avoid finally having to rally behind far more heavy-handed leadership.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Jewicide, that's a good one.

I'd say they're JINOs. Jews In Name Only. Socialism, notoriety and personal gain would be their biggest driving force rather than actually standing up for something they believe in, ironically making them the stereotypical image of the "perfidious jew" of lore...

Lex said...

Baron, I can respect not running from the situation when already in it, especially as this is not a nit-picky issue. After all, I didn't delete my blog after much thought because I don't run no matter how much anyone wants to heap on me, but I wanted to make darn well sure that my reasons for and matters of change in heart were clear. I also wanted to offer apologies to those I may have hurt with my writings in the past, and guess what happened? Those "moderate Muslims" you folks keep saying do not exist have come out in droves from all over the world to write to me much like the amount of mails I still receive from the Dutch for my writings on Pim Fortuyn.

These moderates also proved my initial point, one that was mocked when I initially argued it to so many in the circles that GoV (at least used to, and I'm not talking LGF) associated with. It isn't that they aren't willing to speak out, but why would they waste their time on any sites on which Islam itself is presented as inherently evil? I realize the commenting rules here, but the reaction most Muslims have when they see sites written like this is, "*#&$ YOU!", and I doubt if anyone here wouldn't feel the same. Americans here wouldn't stop by any site vilifying America in its essence without being offended, nor would most Christians here pay much mind to blogs vilifying Christianity. I argued this long an hard with Pamela of Atlas Shrugs, and she, like so many others, just will not accept this.

I usually let my pal The Sphinx speak for himself, as he does so more than adequately, but he's a bit busy. His attitude though, in short, is that there is little point in trying to argue his side of things with crowds like this because he gets attacked from all sides no matter what he says. Furthermore, such an exercise would be needlessly demeaning and a waste of his time as there are many more sites such as this one. Can you blame the guy?

NOT as an exercise in any sort of relativism, before I get charged on that point, try this as a challenge. I want any Catholics out here, Dymphna if she would like as well, to check out this anti-Catholic site (and do realize full well that Mr. Zins there WILL email with you until he's blue in the face) and tell me if this doesn't just make you want to read a bit of what is being said and then make you want to just hurry up and leave. Tell me if you even want to bother leaving any comment for Rob Zins there other than telling him that he has Catholics pegged wrong. Please just try it.

It's not relativism to compare initial reactions and what it takes to make one dismissive. The separate debate over actions of those within any religion or the history of that religion are separate from this gut-feeling impediment to any conversation.

Thank you for de-linking me finally, I do appreciate it. Thank you also for the sentiment of wanting to decry the genocides of Christians living in Muslim lands, but please do not hate any Turks on account of me or my family, we want to end such hatreds as well meaning as those discussing the history of them are towards us. Also note the Arabic script behind your comments and note that this is really not such bad advice, this Hadith:

"Verily, deeds are rewarded by intention. And everyone will have the reward for that which he has intended."
[A saying of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him - Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol. 1 #1]

(And don't bother to call me an "apologist" for saying this or shooting back the more violent passages, I know them all well and am sick of such debates, thank you.)

Viele Danken,

Lex

Zenster said...

Lex: Americans here wouldn't stop by any site vilifying America in its essence without being offended, nor would most Christians here pay much mind to blogs vilifying Christianity.

The only problem is that Americans and Christians aren't flying fully loaded passenger airliners into occupied skyscrapers. Given the overwhelmingly peaceful nature of America and Christianity, the almost unanimous participation by Muslims in all ongoing terrorism becomes a significant issue. Islam's core doctrine sanctifies such incredibly evil atrocities and Muslims around the world continue subscribing to the Koran despite increasing awareness that it is nothing but a war manual.

Furthermore, Islam continues to demonstrate a complete and total inability to either criticize itself or accept outside criticism with anything remotely resembling good graces. That constitutes a major problem and one that entirely belongs to Muslims. Not Americans, not Christians but Muslims and only Muslims.

You extoll these moderate Muslims but somehow manage to neglect the far more important point that there is no moderate Islam. Where does this leave your moderate Muslims? Common interpretation has them pegged as blaphemers, heretics or apostates, all of whom are typically sentenced to death by their own religion.

Please pardon my lack of confidence but such individuals do not seem to have much power in terms of correcting the manifest wrongs of their co-religionists. Given that, their existence becomes increasingly negligible in terms of fighting the Global War on Terrorism.

Faced with ongoing threats of nuclear terrorism, further terrorist atrocities and the creeping Islamization of European and American cities, it's rather difficult to avoid being dismissive about this world's deafeningly silent moderate Muslims.

Equally disturbing is how even moderate Muslim parents still manage to raise children who remain highly susceptible to radicalizing influences. It would seem as though their moderation is not entirely persuasive or appealing to their own kids. What does that say about any hope for increased moderation amongst the world's Muslim population?

PRCalDude said...

I can't understand how anyone with a moral compass who's studied the Qur'an can't say that it is evil. Mohammed al-insan al-kamil (The Perfect Man), was a murderer, a manstealer, a thief, a pedophile and most definitely a lunatic. If Islam isn't evil, than neither is Nazism, Communism, genocide, or anything else.

Lex said...

zenster--you're changing the argument and also proving my point to the proverbial "T". I never argued that terrorists are good, shouldn't be fought, nor shouldn't try to help contain radicalism. Look at your answer, though? Why would any Muslim, even one who barely practices the religion of their parents, bother trying to make their points and the point that they are in fact "moderates" when the first post after my question is one such as yours?

My question pertained only to whether or not Christians, particularly Catholics in the instance I gave, wouldn't be completely dismissive of sites such as this (and therefore unheard by those who only frequent sites like this one) after reading a few mere quotes? Zenster, I used to avoid arguments like the one I posted yesterday by going into monologues such as yours as well, so you're preaching to the former choir here.

PRCal, as usual, clinched the point I was making with his OT comment, though he may have a career at playing devil's advocate.

Can anyone actually offer an on topic answer?

Zenster said...

Lex: Why would any Muslim, even one who barely practices the religion of their parents, bother trying to make their points and the point that they are in fact "moderates" when the first post after my question is one such as yours?

Muslims have a lot to answer for. As a Spanish journalist once said:

"After a while to remain silent is no longer consent. To remain silent is to lie."

This world has quite enough of moderate Muslim silence.

PRCalDude said...

These moderates also proved my initial point, one that was mocked when I initially argued it to so many in the circles that GoV (at least used to, and I'm not talking LGF) associated with. It isn't that they aren't willing to speak out, but why would they waste their time on any sites on which Islam itself is presented as inherently evil?

This is your original question. My reply was off topic, but only slightly. If you had a friend who was a Nazi, would you expect him to try to reform Nazism or to simply leave it altogether? Moderate Muslims, if their are any of good faith, should leave their religion altogether. I'm not doing them any favors by saying otherwise. You can't reform something that is rotten to the core.

Many of these sites you're talking about HAVE formed reasoned, thoughtful, and even charitable critiques of Islam, but Muslims still call it "hate speech." What it really boils down to is that Muslims are incapable of logic and mature responses because there are none found in teh Qur'an. New Surahs completely contradict old ones, and Muslims are comfortable with that. It sets a pattern of looking at the world that fundamentally denies the Law of Noncontradiction, which makes debate completely impossible. Debate requires reason and logic, and there is no such thing in Islam. It also requires that Muslims have another standard of behavior than yelling, "Oppression!" every time someone says something about their pathetic faith. Unfortunately, Mohammed himself did the very same when he walked the earth, so Muslims behave the same.

I hope I'm being clear. Islam cannot be reformed. Saying that there are moderate Muslims is the same as saying that there are moderate Nazis. Conscience dictates that we demand that they divorce themselves from their "faith."

NOT as an exercise in any sort of relativism, before I get charged on that point, try this as a challenge. I want any Catholics out here, Dymphna if she would like as well, to check out this anti-Catholic site (and do realize full well that Mr. Zins there WILL email with you until he's blue in the face) and tell me if this doesn't just make you want to read a bit of what is being said and then make you want to just hurry up and leave. Tell me if you even want to bother leaving any comment for Rob Zins there other than telling him that he has Catholics pegged wrong. Please just try it.

I don't see how this is at all relevant to the subject of Islam. This is a complete non sequitur, and the fact that you've brought this into the discussion means that you ARE using moral relativism. If all you can do is tell people that "you have it all wrong regarding thus and such" and can't provide anything to back up your claims, then maybe you should examine your own claims and see if they're true. Muslims tell us constantly that we can't understand their faith and its source texts. If that's the case, than ultimately words don't mean things and nothing is knowable.

The fact that you've received emails from 'moderate Muslims' doesn't change the debate one iota, especially if, as you claim, you're a Christian obligated to the Great Commission. What matters is the truth claims of the religion itself. The claims of Islam are not changed by the fact that there are Muslims who don't hold to them.

If my topics are off-topic, perhaps you should reread what you wrote and examine how it could have been presented clearly. You tried to conflate statements about 'moderate Muslims' and evangelism to Roman catholics to point out what, exactly? That we're misunderstanding Islam just as these Protestants are misunderstanding Catholicism? You're point is made even more obscure by the fact that the Protestant site you linked is rather charitable, avoids ad hominem, and simply debates the claims made by the Roman Catholic church using Roman Catholic sources and the venerable Bible.

Now that you're quoting Islamic sources to provide moral validation for some of you statements above, I humbly suggest that it is you who is the true Devil's advocate, and I'd even go a step further to suggest that you've gone native. Your comments above, despite your statements to the contrary, reek with moral relativism, and quoting the Qur'an is no better than quoting Mein Kampf.

Sodra Djavul said...

Bravo to Lex for making her genuine appeal for mutual understanding and respect that we were all looking for from the fabled moderate Muslim back in 2002.

Unfortunately, many of us have come to believe, just as Charles Martel and innumerable other leaders of Western civilization in centuries past, that this is nothing more than a white wale, a unicorn whose horn could purify our polluted drinking wells.

None of us can separate good from bad. Neither can you, Lex. But what we can do is separate Muslim from non. Not a perfect solution, but the only one which has a proven historical success rate.

- Sodra

Zenster said...

Sodra Djavul: Bravo to Lex for making her genuine appeal for mutual understanding and respect that we were all looking for from the fabled moderate Muslim back in 2002.

Exactly. For more than a year after the 9-11 atrocity I upheld the case for moderate Muslims. More than SIX YEARS LATER I am no longer capable nor do I even care to do so. Moderate Muslims have had over HALF A DECADE to make a difference and they have contributed SQUAT to fighting global terrorism. They had best start making a much larger difference lest Western nations throw out the moderate Muslim with the jihadist bathwater.

Lex said...

Can any of you actually put together two thoughts or more to leave as a comment without digging into the programmed dregs? You are as robotic as Mitt Romney you two, and Sodra as well. Sheesh.

Can you tell me why a Muslim would not simply be offended by a site like this? That is the question. Period.

I have found plenty of moderates. I don't need to look. But you guys aren't ever going to see them at all. And you think it's funny that your assumption is me looking for something you gave up on in '02? Welcome to the real world where everyone else calls you "wingnuts" for still being obsessed with Muslim terrorists after all these years. It goes both ways.

Now if you can't answer the question, stop bothering. PRCal, admittedly, I'd like to see you going postal over at my GoV site...LOL.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Can you tell me why a Muslim would not simply be offended by a site like this?

Can you tell me why anyone should give a crap?

But let me put it this way. I have visited websites that spent a great deal of time proclaiming their superiority to christians in all respects. Wiccans tend to do this one a lot. Theys pend an inordinate amount of time talking about the "burning times" because their grasp of history is, at best, minimal. What do I do? Get offended? Enraged? Do I start burning pentagrams? Nope. I get out my e-mail doodad and I write to them to try and find out their reasoning.

You see this is the rational way of doing things. Asking people why they hold a particular position rather than simply getting offended at that position.

If I face a website that takes christian scriptures and portrays them in a negative way I ask for an explanation of why that particular interpretation is promoted, why only half a verse is used to prove a point (for example) and so on. I return the favour by then explaining why I think they might be incorrect in as calm and rational a way as possible.

What are you doing? You're coming on and taking offence on behalf of people, acting offended and accusing this site of causing that offence. This is not rational behaviour. If your hypothetical muslim visitor is rational he may well start out feeling offended but he will go away and calm down in order to think about these things. He will ask for evidence to back up assertions made. He might even convince the baron of his position...

Of course if you simply resort to calling people names or throwing up spurious arguments then you'll never convince anyone.

The question still remains; where is moderate Islam. I know moderate muslims too. They drink beer, party and generally have a good time. Or they don't drink beer. Or something else. They're moderate people. More than a few of them will gladly admit that Islam is not moderate at its core. Some of them will insist that Islam is being hijacked by extremists in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Moderate muslims and moderate islam are two different beasts entirely. Try not to get them mixed up, it'll make your argument that much easier to put across in future. :)

PRCalDude said...

Can any of you actually put together two thoughts or more to leave as a comment without digging into the programmed dregs? You are as robotic as Mitt Romney you two, and Sodra as well. Sheesh.

Can you tell me why a Muslim would not simply be offended by a site like this? That is the question. Period.

I have found plenty of moderates. I don't need to look. But you guys aren't ever going to see them at all. And you think it's funny that your assumption is me looking for something you gave up on in '02? Welcome to the real world where everyone else calls you "wingnuts" for still being obsessed with Muslim terrorists after all these years. It goes both ways.

Now if you can't answer the question, stop bothering. PRCal, admittedly, I'd like to see you going postal over at my GoV site...LOL.


You write like someone who speaks English as a second language, except that almost all of the non-English speaking Europeans on this site write in better English than you.

I'll try to make this as simple as I can: we should be as little concerned with how these fabled 'moderate' Muslims are offended by this site as we should with how we offend 'moderate' Nazis. In your politically correct brain, you've somehow established that moderate Muslims mean the existence of a moderate Islam, and such is not the case. In fact, I think you live just to be offended - offended for 'moderate' Muslims, offended by Protestants evangelizing Roman Catholics, offended by WASPs, offended by virtually everything. I've yet to see you write anything actually defending any of your positions using substance or logic or argumentation. You just get offended. By everything.

I don't care if 'moderate' Muslims are offended. If they had an ounce of conscience, they'd leave their ridiculous faith and renounce it this instant. No one who follows the epileptic, lunatic warlord Mohammed who died 1500 years ago has any business telling me or anyone else that they're offended.

Lex said...

I just asked a question. You're the ones who acted like you were letting it all out to Dr. Phil or whoever.
The question gets asked, I asked why you'd see it here. You can't even handle that. It figures.
PrCal--no, give me some credit. Mostly I either ignore or laugh at things, not get offended by them. If it's bad enough, I mock it outright, hence my most recent blog. But then, I'm hardly alone in mocking GoV online, it's so out there.

OBAMA 08!!!!...oooops, wrong site...

PRCalDude said...

just asked a question. You're the ones who acted like you were letting it all out to Dr. Phil or whoever.
The question gets asked, I asked why you'd see it here. You can't even handle that. It figures.


Do you expect people to understand what you're saying here?

PrCal--no, give me some credit. Mostly I either ignore or laugh at things, not get offended by them. If it's bad enough, I mock it outright, hence my most recent blog. But then, I'm hardly alone in mocking GoV online, it's so out there.

If it's such a mockery, why do keep returning? You keep repeating this every time you show up on this site. You've even denounced it once and for all on your blog, yet you keep coming back, like a dog to its own vomit or a junkie to her next fix. Who's the fool?

Zenster said...

PrCalDude: we should be as little concerned with how these fabled 'moderate' Muslims are offended by this site as we should with how we offend 'moderate' Nazis.

End of story. Yo, Lex, purchase a clue.