So the 2nd Ammendment is alive and well in Iraq, and they don't even have a formal constitution yet. I love the march of Freedom!

Ace, wanna borrow me and Sobek's happy jihadi?

This is a marvelous piece of news. The insurgency can only survive through the tacit acceptance of the Iraqi populace. If the Iraqi population starts firing on kidnappers, assassins and car bombers the insurgents won't last long.

The insurgency can only survive through the tacit acceptance of the Iraqi populace. If the Iraqi population starts firing on kidnappers, assassins and car bombers the insurgents won't last long.

I obviously agree, dude, but what becomes of your pacifism?

If civilians can kill these thugs with your approval, why can't men better trained to handle them-- like US Marines?

hmmm... perhaps violence does occasionally need to be met with violence.

what a strange notion.

As all too often is the case, you have confused me with a pacifist caricature. This is their country and their lives that the insurgents are killing.

I am not opposed to the use of force by the US; I am opposed to the use of force when all other options have not been exhausted, the last option that Bush has been known to speak of.

Indeed. It's only OK as long as the US isn't doing it.

Right?

I'm curious: what "other options" are there to dealing with Islamic extremists? The only language they understand is violence.

Zetetic - You are claiming quite an in depth understanding of Islamic extremism with your simple statement, "The only language they understand is violence." Are you really in a position to claim such an understanding? How?

Further, it is not the current violent Jihadists that we need to be bringing to our strategic focus. It is the potential Jihadist recruits and supporters who we need to have a language to speak with. My passing understanding of human responses leads me to believe that taking the option of using strategic violence to prevent violence as the only approach is unlikely to result in less Jihadists.

Iblis:

So the 2nd Ammendment is alive and well in Iraq, and they don't even have a formal constitution yet. I love the march of Freedom!

Mega Dittos and Three Cheers!

And guns are the only thing that'll keep 'em free too!

Now I want my own AK-47! Way to go, Dhia.

Brave brave men. They are a bigger threat to these "mujahadeen" than the "foreign crusaders" would ever be. Especially if the news of the battle has reached the street in Iraq.

I hope they prevail, but I am afraid for them. "Live Free or Die" is a beautiful sentiment, but it sucks when you're the one who has to die.

(using the brainwaves to send anti-ah force field to protect Mr. Dhia)

vonKreedon: Good luck reasoning with these cretins.

Some people don't want to be reasoned with. Some people are sure that you defile the very air they breathe. They want nothing more than to eradicate your impure society. They are not interested in discussing political philosophies:

(via LGF):
Let's do lunch

Can't we all just get along?

(via JihadWatch) Lest you think it is just us Yanks they despise:

link 1
link 2

The Dutch extended tolerance to those who are intolerant

Et Tu Arroyo?

This list could continue on ad nauseum. Please feel free to peruse the jihadwatch site. I highly recommend it (no offense Ace). If you do not know what dhimmitude is, you may want to check into that also (available from jihadwatch). Assuming you are not a Muslim and a worldwide caliphate should come to pass, you would be a second-class citizen.

Try reasoning and nuance with people who kill their daughters to protect the family's honor, kill people who renounce the faith, kill gays, etc.

From jihadwatch:

“Pluralism”? “Diversity”? Jews and Christians in societies governed by Islamic law, according to a manual of Islamic law endorsed by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, are “subject peoples.” They must “pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)” and “are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar); are not greeted with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ [the traditional Muslim greeting, “Peace be with you”]; must keep to the side of the street; may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed; are forbidden to openly display wine or pork . . . recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals or feastdays; and are forbidden to build new churches.” If they violate these terms, the law further stipulates that they can be killed or sold into slavery at the discretion of the Muslim leader. (‘Umdat al-Salik, o11.3, 5.)

I like that they just had their AK-47s sitting around in their carpenter shop. Try doing THAT in Chicago.

I think they were inspired by the Muslim gun-store owners on 24.

For 2 years, Iraq has reminded me of the movie High Noon where the townsfolk with all at stake threatened by the outlaw gang declined to fight and relied on the Sheriff to do what they begged him to do, but were afraid to join in. The movie was made more poignant by offering numerous points where the Sheriff with little personal stake in the towns prosperity - was offered an opportunity to flee and start a better life in a better town.

We all know the Sheriff stood his ground....once...as a point of honor. But at the end of the movie, it was clear to all that it was honor, not the miserable cowardly townsfolk...that was worth fighting for.

I've thought of that with the passive Iraqi people....just watching as insurgents plant a IED, watching as a Marine convoy gets bombed, then gathering enmass a day laterfor bitching to the Marine commander that the Marines aren't doing enough to protect them.

Just about the point I thought the cowardly Iraqis weren't worth a single more US soldier's life - they voted, and a few are actually fighting back against the Sunni insurgents.

High Time.

Remember the Sheriff did move on after the last bad guy fell, leaving the craven townsfolk to their fate if a new crop of bad guys came in.

I don't think the Iraqis will need a second amendment. Given the AK47's per capita, I'm sure that "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" would de facto imply the right to protect yourself, your family, and yes your property.

Reporting from... (sigh)... California, where guns are icky-poo-poo,

Do ya think that the refusal of the electorate to vote for old cut and run had any effect on the tipping point?

violence is not the only language terrorists speak.

the mujahideen speak many languages, violence is one of them. recently they have been playing the pr game. but one language they know very well is law. they manipulate laws to their own benefit often enough.

and this is oart of what lets them give us so much trouble. people are routinely of the opinion that violence must be used only as a last resort. it's a matter of international law.

it's a game to the terrorists. push until the absolute last moment, then bend just enough to avert the possible use of force.

force MUST be used from time to time out of schedule. use force as a first response occasionally and you keep the mujahideen guessing as to what the rules are.

when dealing with states who are reasonable, force is best used as a last resort only, but when dealing with unreasonable men who have an agenda of tyranny on their plate, the force as a last resort credo only invites violence against yourself.

von kreedon

Well maybe if we held a candlelight vigil and sang a few choruses of We Shall Overcome with the terrorists they will come around.

Right

TheShadow: that was an absolutely eviscerating response.

And totally dead-on accurate.

The problem with that "all other options have been exhausted" stuff is that the head hackers and killers aren't going to pay any attention. You try talking and handing out carrots, they'll just roll you.

vonKreedon--

When we visited the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul a few years ago, I was taken aback by the display of sword(s) owned and used by Mohammed.

Islam has a greater tradition of violence than Christianity at its very roots.

The problem as I see it today is that we can not say publicly what the heart of the war on terror is. Islam is a peaceful religion. One problem with that. It's only peaceful to other Muslims (sometimes). According to Islam their is the house of war (all lands owned and ruled by infidels) and the house of Islam (all lands occupied and ruled by Islamic governments). Islam teaches that the house of Islam will constantly be at odds with the house of war until Islam is either adopted by the house of war or the house of war is destroyed. HHHMMM....clear enough for everyone. Traditional Islam today has been so perverted and distorted that most Muslims are taugh from birth to hate anyone not of the Muslim faith. What's even worst, most Muslims do not consider their view points extreme or radical. I spent time in the Middle East. I had to listen on fridays to all the Mosque sermons calling Christains and Jews dogs and pigs. Hate speach worse than that of the Nazis came from some of those mosques on fridays. The best way I can describe the Middle East is by saying it is Europe in the 14th Century. The Catholic church in Europe at that time is exactly what Islam is today. What Muslims are taught by their religious leaders is what needs to change. This is not to say they are all bad, but the majority certainly has a few screws loose. What Islamic terrorist today are trying to do is restart the initial Islamic jihad that conquered lands from Morocco to India in 100 years after the begining of Islam. The Islamic terrorists today ask themselves why this jihad ever stopped and consider it their duty and the duty of every Muslim to continue to force the rest of the world to either adopt Islam or die.

to at:

Now I want my own AK-47! Way to go, Dhia.

Posted by at

Talk to me at, how much are you willing to spend?

The Catholic church in Europe at that time is exactly what Islam is today.

The Inquistion of the Catholic Church was a response to the invasion of the west by Islam, and the subsequent brutal occupation of Spain and other parts of Europe for over 400 years by the most savage, fanatical, bloodthirsty religion ever devised by the mind of man: Islam. The Catholic Church has long been unfairly portrayed as the creator of inquisitions and the attacker of innocent middle eastern Moslems to "conquer lands for Jesus." Nothing could be further from the truth.

The middle east was Christian for 700 years before there was an Isalm, and these lands were were invaded and forced to "convert or die." After freeing Spain and Europe from Islam, the Crusades were launched to liberate the formerly Christian lands from the brutal yoke of Islam. And the Inquisition was a response to terrorist Moslem troublemakers in Christian lands who posed a threat to Christians and who sought a return to Islam, much like they still do in Spain today!

As Paul Johnson wrote: if the Spainish Inquistion and the Conquestadores could be bloodthirsty and treacherous, it was because for 400 years they had been well taught by the most savage teachers-in-blood on earth: Islam.

The proximate cause for the creation of the Holy Inquisition was the Cathar revolt in southern France. After finally suppressing
the military and political defences of the Cathar alternative version of Christianity, the Catholic Church sought to prosecute
its remaining suspected opponents using the civil courts. However trial by jury was an established local custom and the local juries refused to convict.

Therefore the Church created an alternative judicial system which would be more efficient in suppressing the disaffected locals.

There is no doubt Islam is more militant than Christianity, however; Christians and even Jews were permitted to live in Muslim lands throughout the middle ages. In fact they were often royal translators in Muslims kingdoms. There were even migrations of Jews and minority Christian groups into Muslim lands during the middle ages because they faced death or severe persecution in Europe. They only had to pay a small tax for being infidels. Now that may sound bad, but this was a time when Jews and minority Christian groups were put to death in Europe. It has also been said this tax was smaller than any tax they were paying in Europe. Also, instead of killing all Christians that remained in what is now Saudi Arabia, like the Europeans did to all Muslims who remained in Spain, the Muslim rulers of the area paid for them to be relocated to different lands over a period of several hundred years. I agree that Islam is the central issue in the war on terror, however; there was a time when Islam was no more brutal, if not less brutal, than Christianity. If anything we should take pride in the fact that Christianity learned from it's past wrongs and has moved on.

Matt - First of all, the Koran and Sharia Law are full of violence and subjegation, there is nothing in the teachings Christianity like that anywhere. Christianity did not attack Islam, Islam attacked Christianity, and continues to today. And what exactly was the penalty for Christians and Jews for not paying this "small tax?"

I'm not defending Islam, but some of you need to review your history. Violence might not be in Christianity's written documents, but that hasn't stopped people in the past from using it as an excuse for violence. Yes Islam did attack Christianity. No one is attacking that fact. If you read my first statement you will see I mentioned that. I also mentioned that todays Islamic terrorists want to restart that initial jihad against Christianity. I was simply stating that both Christianity and Islam have a long history of violence. Fortunetly Christianity has evolved and no longer uses religion as a call to arms. I spent time in the Middle East and the easiest way I find to describe the situation over there is by comparing it to Europe in the middle ages. This is because most people understand that comparison. Most people during the middle ages were ignorant and could not read or write. They took all their truths and information from the church. If it came from the church it must be true and it must be followed. This is exactly the mindset of Muslims today. If an Imam says it, it must be true. You wouldn't believe the wild rumors that the people over there believe. Everything from a council of Jewish elders control the world to Americans are selling Iraqi land to Israelis. I suggest some of you actually travel to the Middle East or read Bernard Lewis or Albert Hourani and get the facts straight before trying argue your mis-guided information.

When you compare 14th century Christianity to today's Islam, you inevitably leave in the impression of Islam's violence, not its closed mindedness.

both Christianity and Islam have a long history of violence is like saying "people have a long history of violence." It leaves the false impression that all people have been equally violent which is obviously not true.

there was a time when Islam was no more brutal, if not less brutal, than Christianity

Was this after or before Islam conquered the middle east and Spain? Again, this leaves the false impression that they are equally violent when that is obvioulsy false too.

If there are living human beings in any religion it shall be misused. The point is that Christianity does not encourage violence in the same way that Islam always has.

"both Christianity and Islam have a long history of violence."

There is no theological basis for your assertion. Christianity has NO history of violence Matt. SOME CHURCHES have violence in their history but thats a lot different then what you're saying. Have you ever heard of the Southern Baptists invading other countries?

Matt wrote: You wouldn't believe the wild rumors that the people over there believe. Everything from a council of Jewish elders control the world to Americans are selling Iraqi land to Israelis.

Is Cedarford staring roumors in Iraq?

Matt wrote: You wouldn't believe the wild rumors that the people over there believe. Everything from a council of Jewish elders control the world to Americans are selling Iraqi land to Israelis.

Is Cedarford staring rumors in Iraq?

sorry for teh double post

Wow, some people slept through history class. "Christianity has NO history of violence ". Really? Looks like it is fruitless to talk to you. You obviously are missing the point of all this. Exactly how do you judge how violent a people have been? Muslims conquered the middle east, most of eastern europe and Spain. Europe eventually conquered most of the known world, killing and enslaving millions in the process. I'm not interested in comparing something that is uncomparable. I'm interested in it's roots. Islam's violence stems from the fact that it is a political, national, judicial and religious force. Islam encompasses every part of a Muslims life. That and most Muslims today are taught a distorted version of Islam. . Christianity's past violence comes from people distorting it's message mostly for personal gain. My intention here is not to discredit or put down Christianity. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the key issue in the war on terror is Islam. Keep talking history, cause I can go on forever comparing the past of the west and east. Here's something you can use for your next message: The Ottomans took the youths from conquered Eastern European lands and converted them to Islam and forced them into military service. Wow horrible! Wait here is something I can use in my reply! When Christian armies conquered Jerusalem during the crusades they killed every Muslim and Jew in the city. When Muslim armies eventually took back the city they let the defeated Christian forces leave the city unharmed. You can't compare this. Understand? Islam's violence comes from the fact that it encompasses every part of a Muslims life. Christianity's past violence comes not from its written text, but from individuals.

Matt,

To summarize.

Christian violence (Crusades and Conquistadores really, as the Inquisition was too much an internal affair) can be traced to both a defense of original Christendom (taking back the holy land) and missionary zeal (the New World) but neither of these things are part of Christian Dogma.

Islamic violence stems from the very source of the religion---Mohammad and the Koran. Both explictly advocated violence against unbelievers.

So no one's really quibbling with your understanding that members of both faiths have resorted to violence. What everyone is (IMO rightly) jumping on you about is your equating the two faiths as such, and not recognizing the fundamental distinction between a belief system founded on violence and one founded on peace.

Whereas Christianity cannot be said to advocate violence (except in a few, limited circumstances inapplicable on the societal level), Islam in inherently violent in its holy book, its inception, and in its current and historical practice.

That's why people are giving you a hard time.

I realize the ideological differences between the two. I am not debating the fact that Christianity was founded on peace and love. No one is debating that Islam encompasses every part of a Muslim's life and is thus prone to violence. What it sounded like to me was that everyone thought Islam had a far greater history of violence than Christianity. In the past 100 years: yes. In the past 1400 years: ???

Hobgoblin,

Well said. My point exactly. Their have been despicable things done in the *name* of Christianity but most of them not *by* Christians. Islam, on the other hand, has violence interwoven into the very fabric of the faith (excuse the trite metaphor).