2007-01-21
Christian Fascists
This post at Jihad Watch, although not from Robert Spencer, shows that Westerners can be a pretty distasteful bunch as well. They're actually cheering on the sectarian violence in Iraq on the basis that it reduces the Muslim population. They're basically supporting terrorism. And it's not just the author. The commenters are supporting it too.
I can understand the desire to commit genocide against Muslims, but if you want to do that it should be a deliberate policy, and the problem should be explained to the Muslims (show them what is in the Qur'an and explain how we can never trust anyone who believes this is God's word), and then give them a chance to renounce this ideology and to cease indoctrinating children with it. Most people have never bothered to read the Qur'an and do not deserve to die just because they are ignorant of the extremely anti-social behaviour mandated within it.
Quite apart from the fact that sectarian violence is a stupid way to reduce the Muslim population. The sectarian violence would have to continue at current levels for decades just to kill 1% of the population. It achieves nothing. It gives people the impression that liberations cause more harm than good. And given that most of the problem of people supporting terrorism against infidels is in Sunni-majority countries, where it is not possible to set up a Sunni vs Shiite clash anyway, it is all pointless. We need Iraq to be a model democracy showing how different races and religions can live in harmony. Basically the same model that Australia shows. Then we need to force the Sunni-majority countries to be the same as Iraq (which is in turn the same as Australia). What is essentially merely a high murder rate, similar to South Africa (or New Orleans), doesn't prove or achieve a damn thing. Cheering a high murder rate in Iraq is no different from Egyptians cheering natural disasters in the US.
So much for "love thy enemy". Let's hope these people aren't representative of Americans. Bush and the US soldiers have been exemplary. They have both been following "love thy enemy" and even tried avoiding killing poor Iraqi conscripts, by giving them a chance to desert. Both the Left and the Right are morally bankrupt. Fortunately Bush isn't, at least according to his actions. It is very interesting that I should end up loving our Anglophone politicians. Most people hate politicians, but they are the most decent actors I have had the fortune to witness. What's the point of going to a church service? You're better off just listening to Bush's speeches. That is where you will find true decency. I wish everyone else could see what I see. And it isn't just Anglophone politicians. Italy's previous Prime Minister said he was helping to liberate Iraq for human rights reasons. Despite the Italian people not giving a damn about the human rights of Iraqis.
UPDATE: I have been informed by Robert Spencer that the author is an atheist, not a Christian. However, the commenters are still statistically likely to be Christians. Also, Robert Spencer himself doesn't see anything wrong with the post, and claims that the post doesn't support terrorism. Let's see if he's willing to debate me. What a mess. Spencer has been a good actor up to this point.
UPDATE 2: He DID choose to debate me, and after a few exchanges caved in. But of course, instead of admitting defeat he turned out to be yet another intellectually dishonest actor and just refused to continue the debate. He was stuck on two points. One is that sectarian violence in Iraq is inevitable, as if he were omniscient and despite the fact that there are all sorts of things that haven't been tried yet, including as an example (which I don't support) partitioning and forced movement. The second point was that it was in the US's interest as defence against the jihad for this sectarian violence (which in this case is terrorism) to continue, despite the fact that the deaths from terrorism are too small to make an impact, as the dead are easily replaced, even IF you could demonstrate that reducing Iraq's population somehow helped the US national interest (and in my reckoning, it is actually HARMFUL to the US national interest). Totally disgusting. I despair for humanity.
|
I can understand the desire to commit genocide against Muslims, but if you want to do that it should be a deliberate policy, and the problem should be explained to the Muslims (show them what is in the Qur'an and explain how we can never trust anyone who believes this is God's word), and then give them a chance to renounce this ideology and to cease indoctrinating children with it. Most people have never bothered to read the Qur'an and do not deserve to die just because they are ignorant of the extremely anti-social behaviour mandated within it.
Quite apart from the fact that sectarian violence is a stupid way to reduce the Muslim population. The sectarian violence would have to continue at current levels for decades just to kill 1% of the population. It achieves nothing. It gives people the impression that liberations cause more harm than good. And given that most of the problem of people supporting terrorism against infidels is in Sunni-majority countries, where it is not possible to set up a Sunni vs Shiite clash anyway, it is all pointless. We need Iraq to be a model democracy showing how different races and religions can live in harmony. Basically the same model that Australia shows. Then we need to force the Sunni-majority countries to be the same as Iraq (which is in turn the same as Australia). What is essentially merely a high murder rate, similar to South Africa (or New Orleans), doesn't prove or achieve a damn thing. Cheering a high murder rate in Iraq is no different from Egyptians cheering natural disasters in the US.
So much for "love thy enemy". Let's hope these people aren't representative of Americans. Bush and the US soldiers have been exemplary. They have both been following "love thy enemy" and even tried avoiding killing poor Iraqi conscripts, by giving them a chance to desert. Both the Left and the Right are morally bankrupt. Fortunately Bush isn't, at least according to his actions. It is very interesting that I should end up loving our Anglophone politicians. Most people hate politicians, but they are the most decent actors I have had the fortune to witness. What's the point of going to a church service? You're better off just listening to Bush's speeches. That is where you will find true decency. I wish everyone else could see what I see. And it isn't just Anglophone politicians. Italy's previous Prime Minister said he was helping to liberate Iraq for human rights reasons. Despite the Italian people not giving a damn about the human rights of Iraqis.
UPDATE: I have been informed by Robert Spencer that the author is an atheist, not a Christian. However, the commenters are still statistically likely to be Christians. Also, Robert Spencer himself doesn't see anything wrong with the post, and claims that the post doesn't support terrorism. Let's see if he's willing to debate me. What a mess. Spencer has been a good actor up to this point.
UPDATE 2: He DID choose to debate me, and after a few exchanges caved in. But of course, instead of admitting defeat he turned out to be yet another intellectually dishonest actor and just refused to continue the debate. He was stuck on two points. One is that sectarian violence in Iraq is inevitable, as if he were omniscient and despite the fact that there are all sorts of things that haven't been tried yet, including as an example (which I don't support) partitioning and forced movement. The second point was that it was in the US's interest as defence against the jihad for this sectarian violence (which in this case is terrorism) to continue, despite the fact that the deaths from terrorism are too small to make an impact, as the dead are easily replaced, even IF you could demonstrate that reducing Iraq's population somehow helped the US national interest (and in my reckoning, it is actually HARMFUL to the US national interest). Totally disgusting. I despair for humanity.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 04:18 
