What Makes a Muslim Radical?

“Foreign Policy” published a good article comparing the attitudes of Muslim terrorists to those of ordinary Muslims. It might be interesting to discuss. Don’t worry. It is mostly charts and will not take too long to look at.

Posted by Jack at November 29, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #196914


Seems to me the last graphic is the most telling. It appears that the radicals are more isolationist than their moderate counterparts who want to establish ties with the west on an economic basis. This would explain the radical insurgency and their attempts to eject any and all non-Muslim comers from Iraq.

I guess the conclusion I would draw here may be that the radicals put their faith, however twisted they may have become, above all else without exception. The moderates seem to understand that, while their faith is very important, their is life outside of a masque. Religion may be the biggest player in the afterlife, but economics make the world go round.

Posted by: Chi Chi at November 29, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #196920


Good post, though a little short!

What I got out of the charts is that there is very little difference between the “moderates” and the “radicals”. So little there is really no point in making the distinction.

In fact, how did Gallup make the distinction? By what they said they were? In that case, there are a lot of Muslims saying they’re moderates who are realy radicals.

Posted by: Martian at November 29, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #196922

What makes a Muslim radical?

It is when they are fascist (definition: to impose your views on others).

It is when they are intolerant to others.

It is when they use violence to express these views.

Here is a sad story: In order to solve this as peacefully as possible, we told normal Muslims, “Speak to your brothers and tell them to stop the insanity.” Silence. Why aren’t the normal Muslims helping us? Is the media hiding their actions from me? Are the Muslims secretly supporting the radicals? The normal Muslims say “stop categorizing us as radicals!” I say, “Help us more!” The radicals will only listen to fellow Muslims. If the normal Muslims aren’t with us, then they are against us.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at November 29, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #196926

I do not get this data. How do they gather the information for “radical” muslims, did they survey al Qaeda somehow? I mean c’mon, how would they survey radical muslims? Am I the only one confused here?

Posted by: greenstuff at November 29, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #196934


Like an above poster, I guess I was most surprised by how little difference there was in the views of the the “radical” and “moderate” Muslims. I’m not sure what to do with this. To answer a question asked by another poster, a footnote explained that radicals were defined as those who approved of the 9/11 attacks and moderates were those who didn’t. I couldn’t find anything on the percentages of these two groups. I’d like to know that figure.

One consideration, of course, is that here in the West we might think that radical Muslims are terrorists. That seems an enormous overstatement, of course. The radical among us might want to destroy Iran now, but that doesn’t mean they are going to do anything about it. I guess it’s hard to get an actual terrorist to fill out a survey, but it might be revealing to see how they compare to the moderates and radicals in this survey.

Stubborn Conservative,

Are you certain that moderates are not condemning and in some cases actively trying to prevent terrorism? I realize that you probably think anyone who looks at even the English version of Al-Jazeera must be a traitor, but if you do look, as I have, you can find intelligent commentary about these issues, including the condemnations of terrorism. Stuff like that doesn’t seem to get much play in the West, and of course right wing radio, to which I listen, takes it as a truism that “moderate” Muslims tacitly approve of terrorism. I’m afraid attitudes like yours are not helpful — people like you often call for an all-out holy war against the 20 percent or so (my numbers might be off) of the world’s population who identify themselves as Muslims. At any rate, here is a story Al-Jazeera recently published about the murder of three Christian girls in Indonesia. Do you find support for terrorism here? Turn off the radio and television and see what actually is being said around the world.

Posted by: Trent at November 29, 2006 7:06 PM
Comment #196943

“We are not cold-blooded killers,” he told the Central Jakarta District Court on Wednesday. “We just wanted revenge.”

This is chilling, and very telling. Until we stop the desire for revenge from all sides, US included, this will never stop.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 29, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #196952

What I find interesting is the jumping off point for defining a radical and a moderate: whether the respondent believed 9/11 was unjustified (a one or a two on a five-point scale) or justified (a four or a five on the scale).

Could we perhaps extrapolate what a radical Christian is from a similar frame? For instance, if a Christian respondent were to say that the Iraqi War and it’s methods were totally unjustified (a one or a two), thus becoming by definition a moderate, and a Christian who believes the war and it’s methods to be justified (a four or a five), thus becoming a radical, have we learned anything about Christian radicalism?

Or, have we learned more about a hidden cultural and political distinction used to define radicalism?

Posted by: Tim Crow at November 29, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #196954


Yes, I was trying, perhaps too obliquely, to make a similar point.

Regardless, the standard dictionary definition states that a radical is one who seeks “fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions.” Those seeking “regime change” would appear to qualify as radicals, and before anyone gets too upset, “radical” is not necessary a bad word.

I can’t think of a succinct way to describe the respondents of the survey. “Pro or Anti-America” doesn’t quite cover it. “Pro or anti-Terrorism” might come closer, and would at least account for Muslims who dislike the United States but don’t condone terrorism. One problem, of course, is that the survey doesn’t attempt to separate attitudes about terrorism from attitudes about America. And because the views the “radicals” and the “moderates” are so similar, it appears that the survey failed to put its finger on the real differences between the two groups. I wish that, at least, the survey gave us the percentages of the groups.

Posted by: Trent at November 29, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #196956


If you can find an American Christian who thinks it is a good thing to murder 3000 civilians in a place with no military significance with no warning you can call him a radical.

And if you find an American Christian who thinks it is good thing to commit suicide in order to kill as many civlians as possible, you can call him a radical too.

But you know in our society, if when we have people like that in our country we consider them insane.

Did you read about that stupid old Palestinian grandma who blew herself up last week in an attempt to kill a few Jews. Fortunatley, she only managed to make a mess of herself. Her family thought is was a good thing. I suppose they just wanted get rid of the old crone, but that is an extreme way to do it.

Posted by: Jack at November 29, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #196958


Great article to post because I’ve talked to someone from Pakistan claiming that he is an Islamic extremist — BUT: He said not in the sense how we in the West define Islamic extremism (we link it to terrorism while he links it to piety).

Posted by: Mike Tate at November 29, 2006 9:29 PM
Comment #196959


I have known some very devout Muslims. They are sure they are right and they kind of look down on non-Muslims. I know we might find that intolerant, but if you really believe in something you probably think that those who disagree are wrong. But these guys did not want to kill others. They were radical in the original sense of going back to the roots.

We use the term radical in a different way. Terrorists are not in line with the traditions of Islam. Think about when there were real wars between Muslims and Christians. Lots of people were killed on both sides of those conflicts and there were plenty of atrocities, but I do not recall stories of individual Muslims sneaking into peaceful cities and murdering random civilians until they were killed themselves. That would just be crazy.

Posted by: Jack at November 29, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #196967


I read a book about this some time ago.

Suicide bombers are not desperate, wild eyes manics. They are people who firmly believe none muslims should not be on their sacred land.

Well actually suicide bombing isn’t only a muslim thing. It has to do with “foreigners” from a “different faith” with a military occupation. Think of it as a cold, and calculated military campaign. It also can only be done with community support. It takes a supportive community to have suicide bombers.

The above post makes perfect sense from the book I read.

A “radical” muslim to me is a person who is about like every other muslim, but will not tolerate foreign troops of a foreign faith on their homeland, to the extent that they will kill innocent. In their mind, since they have no ability or power to combat foreign aggression directly they use suicide bombing.

They use suicide bombing for one reason. It works. We think we are above this. Except when we look at dropping atomic weapons in WWII on civilian targets to win the war. That was ok, because we were saving our sons from slaughter on the beaches of Japan.

This brings up 9/11. As near as I can tell, the cause of there terrorism was US troops on Arab soil. If we went back to our posture before the first war in 91, the radicals would stop their bombing.

Ok. I found the book.


I found it very interesting and believable.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 29, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #196973

“Did you read about that stupid old Palestinian grandma who blew herself up last week in an attempt to kill a few Jews.”

Jack, sorry to ruin your perfect FoxNews-style propaganda/dehumanizing campaign here, but I read that this suicide-grandma had one grandson in a wheelchair with an amputated leg due to the actions of the Israelis, then her house was completely destroyed due to the actions of the Israelis, and then her other grandson was killed by another action by the Isrealis. Seems it’s not always that these things are perpetrated by crazy people, for no discernible reason. Sometimes it seems a lot more like rage, and the sense that these bomb-wearers feel there isn’t very much left for them to lose.

“I suppose they just wanted get rid of the old crone, but that is an extreme way to do it.”

Sounded to me like it was her own personal decision, and that her daughter was very much distraught about it — in the article that I read anyway.

Btw, I find it very interesting how Muslim radicals are now so amazingly amenable to American poll-takers. Wouldn’t it have been even more interesting if they’d slipped in a few questions about what they all think about Iraq’s new “Democracy” and their Civil War?

Posted by: Adrienne at November 29, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #196974

Craig….you’re joking right?? Holy cow that must be some serious dope you have access to.

Your complete lack of any historical perspective is stunning….just stunning. Gassing kurds, embassy bombings, bombings in Israel, invading Kuwait, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Get a reality grip….they hate for the sake of hating - its wired into their “religion”. Your pathetic excuse for them is vile.

Intentionally killing innocent people with no connection to a war effort (ie preventing other future casualties) is simply…..murder.

Maybe you should formally convert to Islam, sounds like you’re 99% of the way there.

Posted by: echop8triot at November 29, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #196975


In other words, if we just gave in and let Saddam invade Kuwait, we would have no worries, according to the book. That is how and why the troops got there.

Of course, bombing those night clubs in Bali doesn’t fit this pattern.

And many of these bombers do not fit the usual patterns. The Japanese attacked our ships, but they did not kill hundreds of their own civilians in the attempt to kill one American occupier. The willingness of Muslim terrorists to kill other Muslims in their own countries is fairly unique.

I suppose I might turn to violence if someone occupied my country, but I am sure I would not destroy the Lincoln Memorial full of my fellow Americans to make the point.

Posted by: Jack at November 29, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #196977


“If you can find an American Christian who thinks it is a good thing to murder 3000 civilians in a place with no military significance with no warning you can call him a radical. “

How ‘bout an American Christian who finds attacking a country preemptively on dubious and manipulated intelligence, a country without any real power to hurt the United States in any meaningful way, while lying about said intelligence to friends, colleagues and allies? Who does so without any meaningful post-war planning, while claiming said country had connections to a major terrorist group which has proven to be patently false; conducting an unprovoked attack on said country using weapons banned for use by every other civilized country? Then has the unmitigated gall to say he’s spreading ‘democracy’, while ignoring gross negligence and corruption in ‘rebuilding’ the country? A poorly planned, and unprovoked attack on a country that has ended up (so far)claiming the lives of hundreds of thousands, created terrorism where there was none, cost his country hundreds of billions of dollars, and alienated the good will of dozens of allies the world over?

I wouldn’t call such a person a radical. I would call that person insane.

The grandmother, with clarifications added by Adrienne, I can understand. The other person, how do you explain such depravity, mendacity and immorality? I guess, to his credit, he gave the country plenty of warning.

Our government is run by terrorists. Calling it a war of liberation doesn’t absolve it of it’s responsibility.

Posted by: Tim Crow at November 29, 2006 11:43 PM
Comment #196992

My view of the Bush administration policy in Iraq is pretty much summed up with this quote:

“If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee.”

Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: Tim Crow at November 30, 2006 1:35 AM
Comment #197006


What can I say to that. By your defintions I am a radical American. I do not intent to change that particular aspect of my personality, so I guess we will all live with that.

Adrienne et al

Her daugher says:

“They (Israelis) destroyed her house, they killed her grandson — my son. Another grandson is in a wheelchair with an amputated leg she and I, we went to the mosque. We were looking for martyrdom.”

She does not say how the kid got toe be legless or anything about why the other kid was killed. It still is a pretty stupid thing to do. It is good she didn’t kill anybody but herself. Too bad she didn’t do it 30 years ago.

If I sound unsympathetic to these sorts of things, it is because I am. The old grandma died in a sort of Monty Python comical way. May others do the same.

Posted by: Jack at November 30, 2006 8:54 AM
Comment #197030

By all means let’s just stop all this aggression. Then the radical muslims and so called palestinians will stop all of this violence. They will retreat into their own homes, and continue their years of non violent actions. They will no longer call for the elimination of Israel. They will no longer call America the great satan. They will get along with their fellow arabs. Sound like a good idea? Continue living in your fantasy world. This one is governed by the aggressive use of force. Deal with it. The only way for this to end if is one side wins. Period. Which side are you on?

Posted by: Realist2 at November 30, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #197033

“Four Jills In A Jeep” is a movie from WWII era in support of the war effort.

In Mark Steyn’s column on Nov. 27 last, he revisits the movie title only has four new “Jills”. One of them is the grandma mentioned above. The column is worth reading and is available from a number of sources.

The Islamic belief holds that believers in the practice of Islam should destroy all non-believers. The primary recipient of this hatefullness is the Jew and then all others. In other words Islamic people live to kill. To those of non-Islamic belief, this is radical because it does not fit into our character structure as a sane way of living. To them is a normal way of living or dying depending on which mood they are in. Since this is the antithesis of our culture we do not fully understand the psyche behind it. We then must read why the Islamic beliefs even exist. Why do people follow a person who claims to be a prophet of GOD, but does not live according to the laws and commandments of GOD? Why does killing others intrigue the believers of Islam so much? Why do they employ character traits, like hate, that control their lives so much?

I ask these questions not to respect their beliefs but to examine why their standard of life and death is so different from ours and from whence it came. When the questions are answered in depth and detail, we maybe then can approach a way of dealing with this international problem. The time in history that we now live in is surely, according to Bible prophecy, is heading toward a moment in this world’s history that shows the end is near.

Posted by: tomh at November 30, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #197037

I wouldn’t say you sound merely unsympathetic. I’d use a stronger term — but I can’t, because that would be against the rules of this blog.
You seem to think that anything the Israelis are doing is perfectly acceptable, and that everything the Palestinians do in return is wrong — and you imply that this is because they are crazy, foolish people who are predisposed to being violent extremists.
I don’t buy that. In my view the vast majority of people on this planet are not born crazy and predisposed to violence. If you ever watch children of different races play together, you also know that they aren’t born prejudiced either. Therefore, becoming extreme, racist and violent, or the wish to become a suicide martyr in my mind cannot be because these people are born that way, but because they are tragically and horribly made that way.
You may find comedy in this, but I don’t. All my life I’ve considered the Israeli/Palestinian situation an epic tragedy. I see two societies of people where extremism has been allowed to grow and become the norm. I see extreme militarism. I see extreme hatred and prejudices on both sides that is both racially and religiously motivated. And I’ve seen the entire world community allow all this to fester and grow out of all control without any real help or effective solutions.
It’s rather like looking on a totally dysfunctional household where everybody — from the warring, immature children (Isrealis, Palestinians) to the useless, screwed-up parents and grandparents (world leaders) can’t talk reason, or even attempt to maintain any order within the home. The whole thing makes me feel throughly disgusted and repelled and angry and sad. Because I cannot see a way to change things, or to support any of it — not the warring children, even though both might have some legitimate complaints, or the family who stands idly by, or actually chooses to take sides with one of the children.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 30, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #197045


I think they are MADE that way, not born that way. I have seen pictures of little boys dressed as bombers. I have heard the people say they want to be martyrs and have seen that they do it. It is pathological and their culture needs to change.

If Palestininans had been reasonbably peaceful, they might have a better situation today.

Think about the history. In 1948, some Palestinians were displaced. 20, 30 50 nearly 60 years later they still are mad and bombing.

In 1945 millions of Germans were pushed out of homes their families occupied for a thousand years. Yet we did not have suicide bombers in Warsaw. Millions of Poles suffered the same fate at the hands of the Soviets. No suicide bombers in Moscow either.

I am not a great supporter of Israel. I agree with George Marshall that it was a mistake to endorse it. But now that it is there, and has been there for 2 1/2 generations, it is time to stop the foolishness. Like the Germans, Poles, Czechs … well we could make a very long list of people moved out in the 1940s, it is time for them to move on.

BTW - The Palestininans had a chance for a good deal under Clinton. Arafat threw it away. Did the establishment of the Palestinian authority create much peace?

And if the old woman want to blow herself up in the mistaken believe she will get to heaven, I only hope she doesn’t hurt anybody else. She should win the Darwin award. Too bad she already passed her genes and her hateful beliefs to the next generation.

Posted by: Jack at November 30, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #197052

I realize not all are supportive of the Israelis. They have tried a bit harder than the so called palestinians. They rejected every offer, even when 95% of the land they lost in wars they started, was offered to them. History can be your friend. Look at this map and tell me that the “palestinians” deserve this land.


Hate breeds hate. Too bad the grandmother bomber did pass on her genes. Many arabs live side by side with Israelis. Most cause no trouble. The ones that do have been told since birth that Israelis are dogs, and worse. Many left Israel after the partition. They were told to leave and come back after Israel was defeated in the ‘48 war. They gambled…and lost, as they have every time since. It hasn’t really been close. Israel can not lose one war. It irritates the arabs that Israel is a successful country. It irritates them that the swamp and desert land they sold to the settlers turned into arable land. The arabs were too busy fighting among themselves to really pay attention. The state was written up to include all settlements, Kibbutzim, Moshavim etc. Most of this land was sold because the arabs were too lazy to work it. Once the settlements prospered, the arabs wanted the land or the fruits of the settlers labor. Go figure. They have used this hatred to feed their radical agenda. They stole our land! Never mind that the arabs sold the land. never mind that they lost the land in wars they started. Look at the map. Israel was small, very small after WWII. Whose fault is it for their current borders again?

Posted by: Realsist2 at November 30, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #197054

Jack, Adrienne

It is not human nature to want to kill and hate.
The children in the middle east are taught to hate and kill and committ suicide. They have little or no access to the way things are done in the rest of the world. Even the adults have little access. They think they are the mainstream of thinking. So what they do is totally normal to them. If they could spend a few days “out of the box” and spend it in some foreign environment, they would be transformed. But, realistically that is not going to happen. So we are stuck with dealing with the hate, violence, and mistrust that exists there.

Posted by: tomh at November 30, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #197059


Could you provide a link where the Israeli children are taught to hate, kill and commit suicide?

I have dozens of examples waiting for you.


Have you been to Israel? Your ignorance is astounding if you have been to the middle east. Israelis designed the most used internet e-mail application used today. Want me to go on? Or do you want to respond to your own post?

Posted by: Realsist2 at November 30, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #197061

I meant the messenger service not Hotmail!

Posted by: Realist2 at November 30, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #197087

Jack, tomh, your posts both sound a lot like the “useless parents” to me. I see no solutions in what either of you are saying. Solutions are needed. Indeed, it looks like some “effective adults” are going to have to eventually take over the whole situation — because it is no longer merely a dysfunctional “House”, it’s a raging Hell Hole.

And Realist2, your posts sound just like one of the “children”. But guess what? Many of us don’t care who started it, or who did what at this point. What these “children” have got, and everything they’re doing, isn’t working AT ALL. We’re looking at them in complete disgust because we see that there is no real future for either of them unless they make some serious changes together. It’s hard to look at them, knowing they can’t grow up, and that they refuse to acknowledge that there is blood running off of both their hands.

Actually, when I think about it, I could say the same goes for extremist rightwing foreign policy coming from America, as well as the extremist attitudes that are growing like a cancer in the Muslim world. The first casualty of extremism is always diplomacy, and without diplomacy, nothing ever works.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 30, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #197101


Sometimes segment of societies or whole societies drop into this religious/suicide/murder pattern. It is hard to figure a way out of it. Clearly, the Palestinian strategy of non-compromise was inferior to those of Germans, Poles etc or even more recently Armenians, Georgians etc. The Palestinians are fairly unique in today’s world. I think much of it is fueled by Arab policy. It cost the rich Arabs a lot of money to keep the Palestinian wound open and fresh. When millions of Poles were chased out of their ancient homes, they had no foreign “benefactors” to put them in camps and keep them angry for two generations, so they had to reconcile. I know some German Silesians who plan to return to their native land, but now they just mean they will buy a cottage.

The truth is that there is no solution that will satisfy the radicals or even the dumb grandmas. President Clinton tried very hard. He came up with a good solution that gave the Palestinians most of what they ostensibly asked for. Arafat was too hateful to do right by his people. Now you have Hamas. Their line is to the Israelis is essentially, “Give us more land from which to launch attacks and we will still do our best to kill you.” It does not sound like much of an inducement.

A Palestinian civil war is on the horizon. Maybe that is what it will take to burn out this fervor.

Remember the religious wars in Europe? It took Germany 30 years to burn out its initial religious/suicide/murder complex. I hope it will not be so long for the Palestinians.

Posted by: Jack at November 30, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #197111


But the only access we have to people around the world is the current media. I cannot afford a private jet and go around the world just to find pro-America, unti-radical Muslims.

Even if we had a media that reported the unaltered 100% truth, how will we know that the people they interview and the sources they receive aren’t deceitful?


Rush Limbaugh’s show is, by multible tests and surveys, is the most accurate national/international media.

I wish all of our media reports the truth, whether it helps their party/politicians or not. I have more faith in local media than national.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at November 30, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #197120


I did not imply nor mean to include Israel in the post you reference. I was speaking of Islamic countries. My appologies if I was not clear to you.

Posted by: tomh at November 30, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #197126

Being a republican and accepting that the democrates have received the majority of americans votes to change the direction in which we conduct our war on terror.I have questions about what they intend to do once we pull out of Iraq. Also what is their answer for Afganistan?Darfur?Korea?Iran?

Posted by: dolan at November 30, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #197128

Being a republican and accepting that the democrates have received the majority of americans votes to change the direction in which we conduct our war on terror.I have questions about what they intend to do once we pull out of Iraq. Also what is their answer for Afganistan?Darfur?Korea?Iran?

Posted by: dolan at November 30, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #197145

Stubborn Conservative,

Well, then you can’t say that moderates Muslims don’t condemn terrorism.

We will always have the problem of determining the agenda of our sources and coming to our own conclusions. No one is completely objective. The most we can hope for is to be fair. The public is in the enviable position of having access to information from all over the world — it’s called the internet. Do some searches on moderate Muslims. Discussion in the Muslim world is incredibly wide ranging. Don’t forget that Muslims and Araba have a long tradition intellectual tradition stretching back to antiquity. Heck, most of what we have of Aristotle would be lost without the Arabs.

I listen to Rush on most days. I can’t believe you think he represents the most reliable media in the world. Just on a logical basis that statement fails. Rush doesn’t employ a news team to acquire news firsthand; he relies on other media, and then gives it his spin. When he agrees with something the NYT reports, he says, See, Even the liberal media agrees. When he disagrees, he says, That’s the liberal media for you. (I’ve moderated his tone, of course.)

Please cite these studies you speak of that claim Rush is the most reliable news source in the world. I have several books on my shelves that chronicle many, many distortions and un-truths (I didn’t say lies; but he often speaks off the cuff without proper research).

Posted by: Trent at November 30, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #197211

Thanks for the clarification


Yes, diplomacy in the middle east has been a shining example for the rest of the world. When will you open your eyes to reality?

Calling me childlike when you can’t post more than tow or three times without calling people or organizations names, is laughable. Fox news really gets under your skin doesn’t it? Before FNC, when I complained about CNN and the MSM, people said “why don’t you guys start your own news show” I don’t hear that anymore. Too bad you can’t view all of your news through your liberal/socialist colored glasses anymore. Blogs and forums have given those with a differing view access. Frightening for you isn’t it?

Posted by: Realist2 at December 1, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #197236

“Yes, diplomacy in the middle east has been a shining example for the rest of the world.”

Yeah well, it seemed to be a little more successful than what warmongering and no diplomacy in the Middle East has given us.

“When will you open your eyes to reality?”

Oh, do you mean the “reality” where the Iraq War was an excellent idea, “freedom is on the march”, and everything is going just great? LOL.

“Calling me childlike when you can’t post more than tow or three times without calling people or organizations names, is laughable.”

Actually, I didn’t call you childlike. I said you sounded like one of the “children.” This was a metaphor for the way that I see Isreali view of the Palestinians, and the Palestinians view of the Isrealis — as well as those who live elsewhere who for some reason feel they must defend and promote one side over the other, when (at least to me) both groups seem as extreme and as wrong as they could be.

“Fox news really gets under your skin doesn’t it?”

They report lies and spin — you decide.

“Before FNC, when I complained about CNN and the MSM, people said “why don’t you guys start your own news show” I don’t hear that anymore.”

How lovely that you got your wish. You’re not alone, you know. It seems it was really important for a lot of folks not to have to listen to anything approching the awful truth, when getting everything filtered and spun to cater to their own views was what they really wanted from a TV station.

“Too bad you can’t view all of your news through your liberal/socialist colored glasses anymore.”

Actually, I don’t watch too much TV. But I much prefer to read news and opinions from left, right and center. Unlike folks with their FNC, some people find it incredibly boring to wallow in their own bias all the time. By the way, what was that you said about name calling? I guess liberal/socialist doesn’t count?
Hypocritical scolds — gotta luv em.

“Blogs and forums have given those with a differing view access.”

Really?! You mean that bloging is like democracy-in-action? Fantastic. Thanks for the heads-up! I’m always so impressed by the technosavvy.

Frightening for you isn’t it?

Not at all. In fact, I usually find it pretty diverting and amusing.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 1, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #197247

I guess children and childlike mean different things to you in that context. Brilliant. The way you see things is scarier than CNN’s reporting.
If you don’t watch too much tv how do you know that they are lies and spin?
I have lived in Israel and can comment on what happens there with a little more intelligence than you. I have traveled to the west bank many times. I worked with arabs and Israelis for many years. have you?
LOL ? Grow up! What are you 10 years old and new to the net? What’s next POS? (Parent over shoulder in case others are clueless)

Can you give me an example of how diplomacy has worked in the middle east. Please, do hurry. I can’t wait to tell others all about your fantasy world where the arabs get along with ANYONE. They can’t even get along with themselves! Are you that out of it?
FNC has more balanced shows than CNN ever thought about. Try and watch Glenn Beck on CNN sometime. It is shocking that they let him on. A voice of reason in a sea of ignorance.

Whatever happened to that story that Dan Blather tried to pass off as real? Who was it again that started the process that shot down that story?

Amusing indeed. Sorry…my technosavy is showing.

Posted by: Realist2 at December 1, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #197249

You know what Adrienne? Calling someone what they are, is not name calling. Do you deny you are a liberal/socialist?

The foundation upon which almost all liberal socialist ideology is based rests upon the assumption that all are born equal. By extension of this it is inferred that all should share equally in the fruits of society: none are to be granted favor whether it is deserved or not, and none are to be subjected to maltreatment whether of their own making or of an external nature. This argument, which has today virtually developed into a religion among the masses, can hardly be called an empirical one. History has demonstrated repeatedly that it is not true, and the biological sciences have been right behind practically begging for our attention.

Just calling it as I see it.

I realize that being called a liberal is awful. Hence the name change to “progressive” What a laugh. there is nothing progressive about a liberals beliefs. You are walking a slippery slope to socialism. Do you deny this? I din’t think so.

I am done here. The same people month after month, year after year. Whatever happened to the good old days of Aldous and Bettyblue? I may or may not read your fruitless reply. I do know you read mine last week. Irritating wasn’t it?

Posted by: Realist2 at December 1, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #197266

See ya, R2.

Posted by: Trent at December 1, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #197274

Those questions on that site don’t ask the gritty questions, such as doctorine proclaiming Jihad and killing or converting of “infidels”.

See what the response if from both parties on that one. I think we’d be shocked there as well.

Posted by: Matt at December 1, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #197312

Ha! I really got R2’s goat. Two posts in reply to mine, in rapid succession, a few more attempts at personally insulting me for being a liberal, a claim of vast superior knowledge regarding the Isreali and Palestinian people, toss in the certainty that liberals are socialist a few more times, and wouldn’t you know it — a mention of Dan Rather! But he didn’t stop there, no, he then had to top it all off by taking his ball and going home — yet somehow I was supposed to be the name-calling 10 year old. Too funny!

Posted by: Adrienne at December 1, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #197390

Trent, Adrienne

You are too easy Adrienne (insert net acronym here)

My superior knowledge is not a claim. It is not my ball by the way. Just thought I’d point that out. Too bad you can’t get the subtleties of Jack’s posts, or mine.

That was a good example of diplomacy in the middle east, and a well thought out response to the liberal/socialist post. Nice work (note sarcasm)

As far as my leaving goes, there are other outlets that actually have more than a handful of posters. JREF forums is one example. A group of intelligent and logical people in a variety of forums. I spend a lot of time there making fools of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Not sure if you could keep up, but you are welcome to give it a try. I am not saying you or anyone here is a CT’r. They have political forums as well. The debates are full of engineering, physics and math. Heady stuff that most find difficult to keep up with. Know what a Joule is? Welcome in advance……

Posted by: Realsit2 at December 2, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #197397


Oh brother. Know what an “objective correlative” is? You remind me of a professor I had who said that anyone who hasn’t read Middlemarch can’t consider himself educated. (I had, btw). The self-serving arrogance of his statement was overwhelming. I remember replying that anyone who hadn’t read the Phaedrus in the original Greek couldn’t consider himself educated, and then I made sure never to take any of the jerk’s classes.

Arrogance is an intellectual fallacy and is always self-serving. I’ve leave it to your vastly superior intellect to figure out how it’s a fallacy.

Posted by: Trent at December 2, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #197620

Like most things in life the debate about why Muslims hate us so much has everything to do with sex. We get it, and they (mostly youthful Muslim men), don’t.

They look at our busty blonde women on music videos, in Nintendo games and old re-runs of Baywatch and they want what they can’t get.

I’ve lived over there in the Middle East. I’ve also traveled all over Europe. The irony is most striking in Europe where there are large Muslim populations, such as southern France. They young Muslim men oogle passing pretty French girls to the point of salivating. Of course, those French girls won’t give them the time of day, not in a million years. How do they respond?

By firebombing cars late at night, and rioting in the streets of Marseilles, Lyon, Nice and even Paris.

C’est tres simple.

Posted by: Eric Dondero at December 4, 2006 8:39 AM
Comment #197777

Trent the obtuse,
I’ve read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
Does that count?
Ever heard of argument from ignorance? How about a strawman argument? You have displayed both of those and more in recent posts. I’ll leave you and your arrogance to look those up and find the examples. There is no fallacy about my superior intellect. Especially when I compare it to yours. Now tell me what I just did….I’m waiting with bated breath. Not here however….I’ll be at a more challenging place for those with the ability to use logic in their arguments. Hmmm reminds me of another fallacy of yours.

Posted by: Realist2 at December 5, 2006 12:20 PM
Post a comment