Today Dymphna and I have departed from our usual liberal policy concerning comments and commenters. This draconian action is a response to the destructive activities of a single commenter, so it’s only fair to offer an explanation for what we’ve decided to do.Regular readers are familiar with Solkhar, who is a recently-arrived commenter on this blog. Solkhar is a Dutch convert to Islam and lives in Morocco.
When he first started commenting here, I engaged him, arguing with him about certain of his assertions. Eventually I learned that he would not concede even the most basic of facts — e.g. the statistical incidence of violence within Islam as compared with other religions — as legitimate data for a logical argument. That made it obvious that we could establish no common premises for discussion, and that he was commenting in bad faith. I gave up responding to him, since to do so would be a waste of my time.
Solkhar continued in his disingenuous ways, however. He lured other readers into lengthy verbal battles, always defending Islam while stepping deftly aside from addressing the important arguments and damning examples posed by his interlocutors.
Dymphna intuited that he was here to stir up trouble, to tie up the energy and time of our contributors and commenters in pointless bad-faith arguments. She considered him to be dishonest, ill-intentioned, and an agent provocateur.
This morning comes confirmation of her assessment, in Solkhar’s own words. One of our regular European readers just sent the following email concerning Solkhar:
Today I was looking to see if Solkhar had anything on GoV on his blog, and found out he is not out to discuss or comment at all. A few quotes from his own website (emphasis added):- - - - - - - - -In trying to gauge how bad it is, I played a game. Joining many forums and blog-sites under differing names and personas I role-played the conservative, someone from outside the west, as a westerner-liberal, European, Australian, American and so on, all with a little bit of truth or half-truths of my own real persona; to test the reactions…
Certainly I was mostly debating (or arguing) with a minority and my goal is to the more articulate blog-owners and websites…
[…]
…I participate in forums and blogs and battle their views which quickly turn bigoted and dangerous. So… I will pick more often on them.
[Source]
Today I took a look at the bigoted, racist and down-right neo-Fascists out there that continue there garbage, it did not take long… [pointing at Lambeth Walk and others]
Two more weeks of holiday but I have some items that I will post on my exchanges with the Gates of Vienna blog — they will be interesting.
[Source]
His goal is obviously to heat up the comments, to push and pull, until he has the quotes he wants and then be able to later on write at length on his own blog of what a bunch of neo-fascists we all actually are. And there is no way to respond to that, because in his website he does not allow comments: here is no “comment” section on my blog, I am not a hypocrit[sic] like some that allow it but will only chose [sic] those that suit them.
Solkhar, in a way, is playing a very dirty game.
Laine summarized Solkhar’s modus operandi in a comment on a recent post:
Solkhar’s pattern is emerging.
He “agrees” on the danger of Muslim radicals and the need for moderate Muslims to take them on but surprise! is very short of credible evidence that moderates as the West understands the word have any sway whatsoever over the direction of Islam.
As the price of this empty admission that is of no advantage to anyone interested in countering Islamic jihad, Solkhar inflicts reams and reams of apologia for Islam consisting of useless anecdotes and customized interpretations of the Koran that are either takiya or of some marginal small group who are not representative of mainstream Islam. For example, he constantly tries to sideline the damning hadiths as having no importance in Islamic theology.
Whether he wants people to enter his seriously deluded fairy tale world where the Koran is full of sweetness and light and Islam is a force for good despite the crimes it commits on a daily basis against peace and humanity, or whether he is a committed takiya artist (denying most Muslims even know what it means) the end result for this site is the same.
He wastes people’s time and that’s his probable goal. See the pattern. He draws someone in with what sounds like a reasonable admission on Muslim radicals. But he always spends more time denying or justifying Islam’s manifest sins. Eventually, people conclude as Erdebe did above that discussion with him is unprofitable. Then he casts out another loss leader so that he can sell some more BS about Islam.
Push him and the patronizing, entitlement, bigotry and anger start showing. His clear hatred of Geert Wilders is a dead giveaway of his real thoughts.
It has become obvious that Solkhar is weaving a tangled web in his activities here. Dymphna and I have decided that we will no longer allow any of its strands to be anchored at Gates of Vienna.
As of today we will be deleting all comments by Solkhar as soon as they appear, regardless of whether they are civil, temperate, on-topic, or show decorum. Solkhar is now persona non grata at Gates of Vienna.
We will also delete the comments of those unfortunates who choose to respond to him.
If he takes on a new identity and uses a different pseudonym, that incarnation will also be deleted as soon as the new deception becomes apparent.
Goodbye to all that!
64 comments:
The picture says it all, really:
Snake!!
Which ofcourse is also an anagram for: Sneak.
How appropiate!
If he's a time waster you should just ignore him.
Good. A wise decision in my opinion.
"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made."
But not subtle enough!
Regards,
Snouck
HH --
No one will have any choice but to ignore him, unless they manage to respond to his comments before we delete them.
Of course, he may be active while we're asleep. But when we get up -- POOF! away they go.
Good riddance of bad rubbish. I especially appreicate you citing his own blog in order to demonstrate how disingenuous his intentions were.
I had also reached a similar conclusion when I saw him begin to intentionally misread and misstate my own comments. This was part of a consistent pattern of misdirection and a smoke screen for his Islamic proselytizing.
I can only applaud the spirit of fairness in which you permitted his participation and further admire that you had the courage to recognize when said participation was no longer in good faith.
You have done all of us a service here at Gates of Vienna, both in his original invitation and final dismissal. As the old saying goes:
Some people make this world a better place by their arrival and others by their departure.
That Solkhar was a dishonest debater was obvious from the start. One of his comments was that the Jihad was a consequence of the Crusades. Such an obvious and blatant distortion of the truth was meant for one thing only - to muddy the waters, and put an element of doubt among those who were still trying to understand Islam and its nature, and on the very nature of the Jihad, that was, and is, being waged on the world. His campaign was from the start a psy-ops operation.
His motives was to dissimulate and obfuscate the nature of the Jihad; to equate the occasional murders that occur between communities, with the very orchestrated and ongoing nature of mass massacres that a mass of Muslims are engaged in right now. He never ever could apologise for the mass genocide that Islam has perpetrated on humanity through the centuries.
Am I annoyed with Solkar - not really. He is a soldier of Islam, and he is doing what is necessary for his cause.
Homophobic Horse--
Though your advice is the usual v=braod-minded prodecure the Baron follows, in this instance it wasn't sufficient. For this exeption, a more robust response was required. Because he took up too much room and was disingenous, the comment threads suffered. The man needs a watch and a suitcase because it's time to go.
The relief I am experiencing tells me we did the right thing.
Thank you, Baron and Dymphna!
DP111--
While I agree with your conclusion, he can serve his soldierly cause elsewher. It is no end of annoying that he squats on *our* comments to do his duty. I wouldn't put it past him to get a sock puppet and carry on, so when strangers show up at the gate speaking with a forked tongue, they'll go too.
I deduce that since the man is on vacation he's had more time to post endlessly. Once he's back to work, we'll hear less, dg.
Do I expect him to honor a request to go away? Heavens no. People like that are deaf to any but the sound of their own voice.
Dymphna and Baron,
I'm amazed at the degree of tolerance that you have shown Solkhar. He most certainly did not in anyway behave as a guest should, and in many ways violated your hospitality. I wondered when the axe was going to come down.
I wouldn't put it past him to get a sock puppet and carry on, so when strangers show up at the gate speaking with a forked tongue, they'll go too.
I think he has done that already.
However, it is to both your credit that you tolerated his activities - which as I pointed out was not debate, honest or otherwise, but something more serious - an active black psyops operation.
Good.
Down with the islamo-fascists!!
I don't think he got the better of me and, I told him flat out that I thought his comments disengenuous.
We only have so much time to lay on these blogs. I told him so and then went about my own business.
But, he never got the better of me IMHO.
I will say that the "former diplomat" for where ever was kind of creepy...
I will say however that he did spark debate.
I don't know when he appeared here, but I first noticed him after I returned to the country from Russia. I tried to engage him, to no avail. When I learned that he had converted to Islam (!) that was a warning for me. Seriously, it's one thing to be born into the religion, but to convert to it later in life? Anyone who does that has got to be crazy, in my opinion.
I'm sure some people will criticise you for your decision, but really, what can one do? It's your blog ultimately, and you have the right to defend against a rogue commenter.
Dear Friends,
His Grace has recently endured a very similar experience with a very similar personage ('Srizals' - the same?) of the very same professed faith, and has taken the very same action.
Blogger really ought to provide the facility to block IP addresses.
Am I next?
I am so fascinated with exchanges, whether they are with forked tongues or with straight tongues, that I included a tiny fraction of the refutations to Solkhar in my blog, here.
If you want to watch a YouTube debate with a “straight-tongue” who defends Islam against the best speaker in the counter-jihad movement, don’t miss a series of videos, starting with this one.
Nodrog--
Do you have a guilty conscience or something?
There are occasions when your comments have been deleted -- e.g., when you take a quick unpleasant squat and then leave your interlocutors with no way to reply to you. That is not nice.
But you are who you are, and you don't pretend to be otherwise. So, to answer your question: no, there is no universal ban planned for your comments. We'll continue to deal with them on a case-by-case basis.
Now if you would be so good as to return to the post and read it carefully, you will perhaps understand why you are not in the same category.
You're just our leftist-in-residence. Why, sometimes you are even endearing...
Your Grace--
A handy universal ban feature on blogger would certainly be convenient, but you wouldn't have the righteous satisfaction of swatting those devilish little flies.
Hey, if it's good enough for President Obama, it's good enough for GoV.
"THWACK!" Splat. Another dead 'un.
A modest crusade against the dark side, but 'tis mine own and I don't mind being vigilant.
The poor duckie's vacation has to end eventually and the window of opportunity will close on his fingers...
Meanwhile, since we currently are involuntarily unemployed, we have lots of time to go around with the broom and dustpan.
Archbishop Cranmer,
this won't change a thing since most people have dynamic IPs.
Those with static IPs can still use proxys, etc.
YOU SAID IT ALL, WHEN YOU SAID HE'S A CONVERT TO ISLAM.
IT MEENS HE IS BY DEFNITION AGENST THE FREE SPEECH OF ALL OF AS
"I'm sure some people will criticise you for your decision, but really, what can one do? It's your blog ultimately, and you have the right to defend against a rogue commenter."
Natalie, I also hang out on a swedish blog called Politiskt Inkorrekt (politically incorrect). They have for several months being stalked by a similar agent provocateur named Jan. He is not well versed as Solkhar or write as long comments as him but he is still an annoying pest. The blog owners also tired of his BS eventually and is now deleting his posts as they appear. He constantly changes nick to confuse but the owners has his IP, actually two, so he probably posts both from home and somewhere else. They have outed him several times with both name, address and phone number! The postings has slowed down lately so maybe he has got tired and found other hunting grounds. If Solkhar continues to pester this site, whether as Solkhar or under other names, I hope D & B will also trace his IP and out him on the blog.
For whatever it means I can only say that I won't miss him, not one single bit. He is extremely tiresome, just like the other troll Jan and as others already concluded a waste of time.
Hi Gordon,
Thank you for your comment, which is as interesting and amusing as always... Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by the phrase "other possibility"?
Solkhar, you fooled me.
I know trolling around is funny, but, why would someone have a plan for trolling??
Anyway, who cares?
I just want to say that it is important to engage reasonable people who disagree with us and try to convince them.
Robin,
I'm about 99% sure that I have Solkhar's IP. I believe he visited my blog right before I checked my site stats.
Zenster,
"Some people make this world a better place by their arrival and others by their departure."
I had never heard it but now that I think about it...
The great value of blogs is that they enlighten people with information and lines of argument in support of positions. "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." But that only works if people are sincere and honest in what they write.
One doesn't have to be a tennis star to tell if someone is or is not "playing by the rules." If a participant on a blog refuses to "play by the rules" of using logical argument and supporting statements with facts and data, then he is acting just like a spoiler who keeps lobbing the tennis balls over the fence. The serious players waste a lot of time chasing lost balls.
Solkar refuses to "play by the rules," because he knows his real game stinks. We can all chose to live our lives as an inspiration to others, or as a warning about what is evil and pointless.
Just when you were doing so well, nodrog, and then you had to start name-calling. Is this your particular problem or does it infect the mindset of your leftist friends, too?
Not only is calling someone a "simpleton" beyond the bounds of civil discourse, but your comment was off topic.
If you were a dog, you'd live in the yard because you certainly do resist house-training.
One more time, Gordon:
NO.NAME.CALLING.
"but I first noticed him after I returned to the country from Russia."
Natalie, have you been to Russia?
How amazing!!!
Yes, Afonso, I have been. It was amazing; I loved it. I'll eventually get around to posting about it on my blog :)
Ex-Gordon, it was not a hoax because people actually got killed there.
HOWEVER, they made a whole different story of what really happened and painted it in the darkest black available. That's the hoax. Is it hard to get? Do you have any idea about what happened that I don't?
And I'll visit your blog and ask you a thousand questions about it.
:) Keep up!
Baron,Dymphna,
I'm not surprised you've taken action. I'd have to say I thought Solkhar was discussing Islam in good faith at first,until I noticed his infiltration of other topics.
We're all playing with your bat and ball after all and should stick to your rules.Solkhar's tactics seemed self-defeating in the long run,as he's been trying to guild a particularly poisonous lily,the agenda becomes transparent sooner or later.
First of all, kudos to The Baron and Dymphna for tolerating the phony for as long as they did. They gave him every chance to present his views, same 'ol same-o. The guy was not an honest debater, just an agent provocateur as Dymphna concluded. He didn't fool me, and not many of you from what I saw.
Party on, Garth, er, Solkhar.
So Mr Wtyczka is Dutch. I must laugh when I see a Dutch guy importing his Dutch islam back to Morocco finding them "very tolerant". He must get applauded every day and be a real minion there.
wtyczka (pronounce vtychka) is a Polish term denoting communists planted in other political parties to paralyze them whenever necessary.
Every muslim is by definition a wtyzcka, so that the elsewhere valid difference between malevolence and benevolence becomes irrelevant.
The real point is that nothing he said is going to make any difference to what's going to happen in the streets. A total waste of space and time (and he never won an argument either).
My point, over and over, has been that none of the Islamic "debate" would be taking place if they weren't HERE - and they are proving over and over again that they shouldn't be.
'bye Solkhar, it wasn't nice knowing you. Now, let's get rid of the rest of them.
Dymphna the Iron Maiden!
Or is that a deletable insult too ...?
Gosh Gordon, you could have answered my question... I was asking it in all sincerity...
Natalie--
Yes, you're right: nodrog could have answered your question. However, have you noticed that leftists often appear to consider responses optional?
Whether or not the querent is sincere doesn't seem to be a factor. Kind of random.
OTOH, most often nodrog simply writes whatever is on his mind at the moment and then drifts off with the breeze, not to return again for days or weeks.
He comes, he goes. He doesn't speak of Michaelangelo.
Gordo, me boy--
"Iron Maiden" is indeed a fine sobriquet. However, the noun is misleading since I have four children...ummm, make that three.
If we're going to have truth in advertising, how about Stainless Steel Warrior (Warrioress?)
Since my real name means "woman who wields a sword" that would be close enough for government work.
I approve. On many forums I have encountered Muslims who wish to portray non-Muslims as 'racist' by constantly goading them and twisting their words.
His time here was educational. We should all study his methods very carefully and learn exactly how he operated, how he was achieving his goals, and what precisely his goals were in the context of his obvious overarching goal of advancing the Ummah.
It is a rare thing to have such 'intimate' contact with his like. Know your enemy, and here was a prime example of one those.
Solkhar was of little use at this site except as an example of what we're up against.
Muslims have all categories covered. They have the sharp end of their spear, the blood thirsty jihadis, but they also have their Solkhars, part of the shaft in every sense of the word. Their job is to make Muslim black into white and sow confusion among Islam's opposition.
Some are slightly more clever at it than others, pretending to give a little valueless ground like agreeing on one obvious such as the danger of militants. Then they take that obvious and try to minimize it, or deflect blame to anyone else but Muslims.
Solkhar is a takiya artist pure and simple, who started with denying that most Muslims even know what it means. That may even be so, as Muslims are incredibly ignorant about their own cult faith. Most don't understand Arabic and probably haven't even read the Koran in translation. But the devout educated Muslims all know what it means and undoubtedly use takiya and other diabolical tools inherited from Mohammed's instruction or example as a sneaky warlord frequently. Of course
Saudi imams instruct the ignorant masses in mosques and it would be shocking dereliction of duty if takiya 101 were not on the course for Muslims living in Western lands. That's likely why Dutch educated imams are not acceptable in the mosques because they would not be fomenting falsehood, hostility and treason toward the host country and its citizens.
Solkhar's performance was uneven, varying from borderline sophisticated to reminiscent of the Iraqi information minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf known as "Comical Ali" who was still denying on national television the presence of American soldiers on Iraqi soil when they stood a few hundred meters from him.
Look at Solkhar's typical approach to the multiple inconvenient truths about Islam, using takiya as an example:
According to him: takiya is irrelevant, obscure, not in the Koran, (when faced with a verse from the Koran, he switches to the context argument and how we could be arguing all day but he, the Muslim is most certainly right) most Muslims don't know about it much less practice it (but just like suicide bombing, only a few lies in the right places can do great damage).
(This was always a favorite) People of other faiths lie too.
Maybe he really was a diplomat because he seemed to think his credentials counted for something here in the real world and allowed him to pull rank. Immodestly describing himself as intelligent, cultured, well-read, a world traveler, a diplomat working for the Netherlands (I always felt sorry for the Netherlands represented by someone whose first loyalty will always be to his fellow Muslims), follower of al-Sina, widely experienced but above all, Muslim, he could not get over how any infidel would dare to challenge his interpretation of Islam. Anyone who brings up takiya is ignorant and vile, and of course now anything the great Solkhar says is a waste because it will be dismissed as takiya boo-hoo.
Anyway, once everyone has had a few rounds with Solkhar and had gotten the measure of the man, his tedious lecturing and disinformation outweighed any value he brought to this site as the Baron and Dymphna wisely surmised.
As for Nodrog, it's very disappointing that after his big speech about how he was leaving for good because we were not fit company for his exalted self he decided to come "slumming" again, actually more like a drive-by hefting out the usual bag of garbage.
No one needs a resident lefty as capricious and mean spirited as Nodrog because everyone on this site can write his drearily predictable and logically incoherent rants e.g. anyone criticizing immigration even illegal immigration for any reason is a racist. No non-white can be racist. So therefore Mexicans flowing into the United States illegally, sending anything they earn to Mexico while American taxpayers pay their considerable costs of health care, education, crime can only be objected to by a racist while the fact that Mexico deports any illegals who cross into its territory is not racist...it's their right. Everything Mexicans or any non-whites do is right, whether they're crossing your border illegally or preventing you from crossing theirs.
It would be good to have a principled lefty without double standards to spar with, but that's not Nodrog.
Actually, a lefty without double standards is incredibly rare. Does anyone know what happened to the Euston Group?
WAKE UP --
Language, please!
--------
WAKE UP said...
Over on Lambeth Walk, I called Solkhar a "pseudo-intellectual [expletive]". When he protested, I still couldn't be sure which part of that he objected to...which kinda proved my point :)
Well Baron, apologies to you, but not to Solkhar. Sometimes bluntness is neccessary; the man's a fool if he's as bright as he claims to be yet still believes in the nonsense he purveys. He can't have it both ways.
I'd settle for "pseudo-intellectual idiot", if you will.
Natalie, the alternative for someone who actually believes that Srebrenicza was a "hoax" is not usable by me in this post, as Dymphna would promptly ban it.
And speaking of insults, Dymphna, let's look at the language Laine used in his post addressed to me:
-capricious and mean spirited
-drearily predictable and logically incoherent
I noticed that these are all adjectives, whereas "simpleton" is a noun. Does this mean that insulting adjectives are OK, Dymphna?
Or do you just have a double standard?
nodrog--
It's not so much that I have a double standard as it is you have established a rep for saying mean things and disappearing. Your comments are often poalrizing and so I police them more carefully.
I wouldn't have known about this latest one of yours (I was busy writing a post) but someone contacted me and suggested I look at what you had to say...that happens frequently, nodrog, because you are frequently out of line.
There isn't time to read all the comments, but there is always time to clean up after you because of your amazing ability to make comment threads go sideways.
Based on my experience,both the process and the content of your comments can be polaarizing. Sometimes this is due to what I perceive to be an animus toward Gates of Vienna and toward our commenters. At other times it is hard to understand whatever point it is you're trying to make.
I am telling you what I see and what others have complained about. Only you know what is in your own heart.
I fail to understand why you returned after promising to leave for good. I fail to comprehend why you would even want to be here.
Double standard? Yes, for you. You earned it and I think you should wear it as a badge of honor.
This is a bit off topic but I have been so curious for quite some time now why everybody spells his name backwards? For whatever reason it must be rooted on some incident happening long before I found my way here. If it is because you think he is backward then Solkhar would be spelled Rahklos. Anyone care to enlighten me?
We are in a war - a proper war. Our troops, i.e. virtually the whole of NATO plus even neutral Western countries are in Afghanistan. Despite repeated assurances to the contrary, Muslims are convinced that we are engaged in a new Crusades. Some Muslims therefore, see GoV and other such sites, as part of the "Information and outreach" aspects of the war effort.
Believing Muslims are unable to respond to what they see as the new Crusades, in any direct manner. Their country's governments, confronted by the awesome power of the Western military, have no option but to cooperate. This leaves the believing Muslims feeling humiliated. This is perfectly understandable. The only way Muslims could respond was by engaging in terrorist attacks- London, Madrid etc. But these attacks on civilian targets have done more harm to their cause with no real strategic gain. In fact it has led to the Muslim hijra community being viewed with increasing suspicion.
To negate this charge, we are now seeing attacks by Muslims on military bases in the West. "Frying pan" and "fire" comes to mind.
What should we do? We should obey the law, vigorously support our governments in the difficult task they have of convincing the population of the absolute necessity of our involvement in Afghanistan, and support our troops.
Now to GoV issue. Over the years since 2001, there have been many Muslims who have appeared on LGF, JW/DW and others such sites, many of them adopting disguises such “Jewish/Christian to islam convert” or “Atheist lapsed catholic”. All of them exercised relative good manners. Solkhar was different. He is a soldier of Islam and was doing his duty. In his training to be diplomat they obviuosly left out the module on "good manners".
Considering the advanced state of the war, we are going to see more and more of these Mujahid types. Some may be even more devious then Solkhar. So what should GoV do confronted by a rapidly changing situation originating from an escalating war?
If ever there was any doubts, this is a real war, and GoV is perceived as part of the war effort. Therefore GoV can no longer afford the luxury of allowing anyone who shows Mujahid tendencies to post at GoV. We certainly would not have given radio time to Nazi sympathisers in WWII.
-----------------------------
Baron and Dymphna
Excercise that same judgement, and delete this post if you think it harms the war effort.
Dymphna,
This is a private blog, not a Parliament. None of us has any more right to comment on, or even read, this blog than we have to borrow a book from the Baron’s study. So please don’t be shy of excluding trouble-makers, distasteful as you may find it!
I think the contentiousness of the issues increases, rather than reduces, the need to exclude the malign. Especially in Europe, where hate speech laws are intended to menace. Such an accusation tends to require a “threatening” element, which is easier if a provocateur can (a) provoke it, and (b) claim it was said to him in a direct exchange, rather than part of a general comment.
So I think you do a service to your bloggers, and to the ability of your blog to survive, by protecting their ability to exchange ideas unharried. Trouble makers lose control if all they can do is observe.
Best wishes,
Hal
Argumentative, dishonest, djihadist Muslims such as Solkhar are useful to engage with on a blog for a while, because they help us, and everybody, realise what we are up against, and what sort of strings the enemy is pulling.
The unwanted side-effect is that, by so doing, we enable the Islamist trolls to understand the way we react, and therefore, to devise ways to overcome our own defenses.
A sort of flying imams moment, if you will.
But I suppose that's unavoidable at some point in any type of warfare, overt or covert, ideologic or military.
However, there is always some point where such trolls must be banned. My own experience, based on several similar episodes on different blogs, is that the useful lifespan of an argumentative Muslim on a counter-jihadist blog is quite short.
The Solkhar episode here confirms that, and his banning was inevitable from the start.
An alternative policy might be to ban such commenters from the start, as soon as they are detected -- and that's not difficult.
This might become necessary if, at some point, little solkhars began to multiply. Rest assured that Muslim blogs and forums have a very short patience when it comes to tolerating un-Muslim critics.
Solkhar wrote: "What I have also noticed by the most bigoted - the "Baron" and "Dymphna" by the way have not themselves shown bigotry - is that they will use the great "escape clause" of claiming Taqiyya. I find that the most funny of all, considering that I live in and have extensively travelled the Muslim world, that term is not used if not understood by almost all of the Muslim population on the planet."
The 'term' is merely a label for the behaviour - displaying a behaviour doesn't automatically mean one knows what it's called. Taqiyya is natural behaviour for Muslims, so natural it's part of them and as such only needs defining in the context of non-Muslims. And as Muslims are utterly subjective they're unconcerned with the ways of others, so it's not surprising that most don't know the term 'Taqiyya', they're probably not consciously aware of what they're doing - they just do it because it is part of them. It is what Muslims do.
Robin --
I have been so curious for quite some time now why everybody spells his name backwards?
That's a leftover from Nodrog's days at Little Green Footballs.
It's hard to remember now, but Charles Johnson once tolerated a wide spectrum of opinions and commenters. Nodrog was considered a pest there by the regular lizardoids, and they mocked him by giving him that name.
He was already called "Nodrog" by the time I started commenting at LGF, so I'm not sure how the name came about. My guess is that it went something like this:
Q: "If he was formerly known as Gordon, what's his name now?"
A: "It must be 'Nodrog'!"
But that's just a guess.
Baron, you made the right decision. His comments to your post of The Armenian Genocide video had fantastic distortions. I had considered responding to his comments but decided against it since Muslims don't believe in truth.
"This is a bit off topic but I have been so curious for quite some time now why everybody spells his name backwards?"
Lol... I hadn't even realised it...
I thought it was some American redneck slang word for liberals...
ChrisLA: "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.".
My favorite corrallary to your quote is:
"Character is a diamond that scratches every other stone"
laine: Solkhar is a takiya artist pure and simple, who started with denying that most Muslims even know what it means.
A monumental dose of taqiyya in and of itself.
Nodrog: -capricious and mean spirited
-drearily predictable and logically incoherent
I noticed that these are all adjectives, whereas "simpleton" is a noun.
They aren't mean-spirited when they are true.
thll: The 'term' is merely a label for the behaviour - displaying a behaviour doesn't automatically mean one knows what it's called. Taqiyya is natural behaviour for Muslims, so natural it's part of them and as such only needs defining in the context of non-Muslims. And as Muslims are utterly subjective they're unconcerned with the ways of others, so it's not surprising that most don't know the term 'Taqiyya', they're probably not consciously aware of what they're doing - they just do it because it is part of them. It is what Muslims do.
As with the Scorpion and the Frog, it is a part of their nature. After all, how can anything be verboten for those of the Master Race™?
Thanks Baron for the answer on the nodrog issue.
Having been hanging out on mahoundian sites and blogs (of course under other nicks) I fairly well know the mahoundian mind set. Especially have I been interested in the case of the converts since it baffles me how someone born in the west, with western values and ethics so easy can adopt an alien culture so different from our own. Another thing I have noticed is that the actual conversion doesn't necessarily had been many years or decades back. Even fairly new converts show signs of adopting or rather having been assimilated into mahoundian borg rather immediately. I have seen converts who converted only 2-3 years ago, only a year ago and recently one who converted only half a year ago. They are already fullblown mahoundians by now, thinks like mahoundians and probably walks and quacks like ones also. So Solkhars behaviour as a convert is quite to be expected, no matter when he actually "reverted" or not. His mindset probably started to change months before he actually converted. He had already been a muslim in heart and soul sometime before he took the formal shahada and thus turned to the dark side. At least I have observed this in converts myself.
"It baffles me how someone born in the west...can adopt an alien culture."
Robin, it's because damaged, insecure people confuse their own psychopathy with their society at large. Unable to fix themselves, they blame society and set off to find one more compatible with their own peculiatities (I'm not saying this is a conscious, reasoned process). Islam's a perfect fit, because it welcomes useful idiots, instead of saying to them, Don't Be Ridiculous.
As I said to Solkhar, I feel sorry for him, but his self-deluding intransigence (pretty much a thumbnail description of all Muslims) prevents anyone helping him in his madness.
What a sense of entitlement Nodrog has. He comes to a site where he routinely insults the owners and for the express purpose of harassing posters with whom he shares no common ground.
Yet he has the chutzpah to show pique when his pigeon droppings get a rough reception or the owners make decisions about their private property and its use by him.
This is a uniquely leftist behavior pattern. Conservatives do not waste their time on leftist sites making bad faith arguments merely for the sake of annoyance and insulting their hosts. That's just bad manners.
Does the skunk at the picnic complain that he's not treated as a valued guest? No, he knows he's a skunk where he's not wanted and takes the consequences.
Dymphna, the only word I would have changed in your very ladylike remonstrance to Nodrog, far more polite than he deserves is that he's earned his treatment (only he calls it a double standard) and should wear it with DIS-honor.
The standard on this blog appears to be well-reasoned discourse of interest to other participants. There's no "double" about it since the vast majority of Nodrog's contributions do not qualify.
P.S. Why is Nodrog sputteringly angry that we took him at his word when he made his supposedly permanent exit from this site with some nasty parting shots having something to do with emesis? What good is his word?
If he regrets his precipitousness, where's the apology for getting everyone's hopes up? Instead, there's a flurry of new complaints.
Arrogance is only tolerable if someone has the intellectual heft to match it.
Why did I suddenly think of Obama?
Post a Comment