Your links seem to have disappeared. I hope you saved a screen-shot of them.

Okay, who volunteers to explain it to levi from queens? <g>

Dafydd

An erudite response from CAIR, if a little verbose.

It seems she is not the only one who does not know irony when she sees it.

This Pope is wiser than I thought. The Moslems, and those manipulating them, are far more evil than I thought possible.

Until the "blanks" are filled in with condemnation for the reaction to the Popes comments/history lesson, expect the lunacy to continue apace.

The deafing silence is not surprising, and their reasons (fear of retribution,example) will be interesting to hear, if we ever hear any.

Don't pick on Levi (too much). I have to admit, after the first omition, I too thought it was clerical for a moment.

None of your blockquotes are showing.

I see more than one of your readers are using reality browsers which do not support the "(irony)" tag...

*sigh*

I see that more that one of your readers are joining in on the fun. I myself am amazed at the eloquence of your champions of the Islamic cause (NOT).

I do have a red face.

I think everybody is missing everybody else's irony, actually.

So, in summary, the Muslim world has responded to a 600 year old quote implying gently that certain subsets of Islam are violent, by shooting a nun?

Well. That about covers it, I'm certain we can all agree...

Looks like quite the crusade you're waging, Dafydd. Too bad there aren't even more people like you who are brave enough to condemn Islam itself and its billion-plus adherents.

But I figure you can handle a fair number of them with the way you wield that irony. Go get 'em, big guy!

NAndrews3:

Too bad there aren't even more people like you who are brave enough to condemn Islam itself and its billion-plus adherents.

Ah, but I don't condemn them, at least in the way I think you mean. I think that you think that I think all Moslems are equally culpable; but that's not what I think I think.

Rather, I think that very few Moslems actually think that it's acceptable to protest a pope's remark about the violence in Islam by shooting a nun in the back; more likely, most of 'em think that they're under siege -- because they've always been told by every Arabic and Moslem source that they're under siege -- and they think it's treasonous to double-think those on the front lines defending the faith... even if they think those people think evil thoughts.

They may also think they, themselves, and their families, are in mortal danger if they speak out... and not without good reason to think so.

So what I think I think is that the big lump of Moslems are either too hesitant or too timid to act on what they actually think is right (and I also think I messed up the verb-noun agreement somewhere in there, but I can't think how to correct it). Rather, they think -- or I think that they think -- they have to think what they're told to think. At least, that's what I think.

You think?

Dafydd

That's exactly what I think. But I think nandrews3 thinks we can't think, don't you think?

I think he thinks we can't see the underlying attractors, for I think he thinks we have merely false consciousness.

Dafydd:

I agree. Remember Nixon and the silent majority? Well I think the Muslim world has one too, but they are afraid and they are conditioned to silence.

So, after the "irony" comes the nuance. Does this mean you don't actually subscribe to "the thesis that Moslems are an excitable bunch"?

Here's what I believe. You and others are right to express outrage at the killing of the nun in Somalia -- and at anyone who claims that such crimes are justified by something the Pope said (or by anything else, for that matter). I can't tell, from reading the news stories, whether Somali clerics are actually making that claim. But if they are, you should have at 'em.

But it's wrong to use the tragedy as ammunition against American Muslim groups that you're fighting with anyway. And it's not just wrong, but crazy, to let your efforts to delegitimize those groups lead you to characterize Islam itself as inherently violent, or to make similarly gross characterizations of a billion Muslims. So, now our problems with them exist because they're mostly a lump of hesitant and timid people? Yeah, right.

There's now quite a tension on the right wing between what you do, at least in this post, and acknowledging that we still need to build (or rebuild) support in the Muslim world. The task has grown ever more daunting. But if we're ever going to drain the sea in which the evil fish swim, we won't do it alone, no matter how righteous or superior we might feel. I can see how it serves some people's political purposes, or emotional needs, to keep using Muslims as a foil. But it doesn't exactly serve our security or our interests.

NAndrews3:

NA, you make a lot of bad assumptions which lead you to false conclusions in that last comment.

First, of course Islam is inherently more violent a religion than Christianity or Judaism (or Buddhism, Shintoism, and many other but not all religions).

Islam is the only one of the major world's religions that was founded by a warrior, for one point. There are many passages in the Koran about battles and wars conducted against the infidels by Mohammed himself: not this follower or that minion, but by the last and greatest of all of God's prophets, Mohammed.

In practice, there is no more violent culture on the planet today than the Moslem culture: and yes, they see it as one culture, despite differences... one ummah.

Islam has much stronger violent tendencies than any other major world religion; the siren song of jihad is always available as a solution to any problem.

But so what? That does not excuse individual Moslems from their personal responsibility to eschew those traditional elements of Islam that lead to irrational violence.

I would say that the Marines are inherently violent; but that doesn't excuse individual Marines from accountability for violence they conduct: if it turns out to be outside what is allowed by our society -- beating up their wives, for example -- then they're punished, despite the fact that they're members of an "inherently violent" group.

Second, to paraphrase (since I'm too lethargic to look it up), all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing. Thus, Moslems not only need be held accountable for violence they personally support, they also have a duty to speak up against others who engage in violence "in the name of Islam."

I am a Jew. I was born into the culture, but I voluntarily accept it now and consider myself a (nonreligious) Jew. If some Jews were to launch a terrorist attack "in the name of Judaism," I am obliged to speak out and verbally assail them for whatever crimes they commit. If I fail to do so, while denouncing Islamists who commit terrorism, then I'm a hypocrite.

(I'm not obliged, by the way, to accept every allegation of "Jewish terrorism" leveled by militant Islamists; they say it all the time to distract attention from their own evil deeds.)

Third, the groups I mentioned are all well-known supporters of Islamic terrorism, none more so than CAIR. They all claim to oppose it, but they funnel money to terrorists; and CAIR at least was founded by people who were themselves terrorists. They are front groups for terrorism.

If you don't know that, you haven't been paying enough attention.

Thus, the purpose of this post is call attention to their complete indifference to the suffering of non-Moslems at the hands of Moslems -- even while they squeal like stuck pigs whenever they believe something adversely affects Moslems, no matter how frivolous.

I will continue to point this out to one and all.

Dafydd

nandrews3

You seem to be making some assumptions about things said that I haven't seen dafyyd say.

But it's wrong to use the tragedy as ammunition against American Muslim groups that you're fighting with anyway. And it's not just wrong, but crazy, to let your efforts to delegitimize those groups lead you to characterize Islam itself as inherently violent, or to make similarly gross characterizations of a billion Muslims. So, now our problems with them exist because they're mostly a lump of hesitant and timid people? Yeah, right.

Yes, he is right. It has not been missed by anyone that appeals for "moderation" of Islamic violence is not being heard by those countries which already harbor ill will to democracy. Due mainly to 1) no one preaching it and 2)the lack of anyone in the Islamic world of agreeing with the Pope for the very discussions he has asked for. It is exactly correct to term the Islamic reaction as hysterical - and violent. Even in Iraq, it's not an oddity that the largest voice criticizing the Pope does not belong to the Iraqi's per se - they are the al-Qaeda type insurgents.

In addition to dafyyd's remarks:
..more likely, most of 'em think that they're under siege -- because they've always been told by every Arabic and Moslem source that they're under siege -- (which I completely agree with), I would add that those governed by dictatorships will normally have the mindset dafyyd speaks of. Democracy is threatening to the legacy of authoritarian forms of government. But since the Iraq experience, it seems that democracy may have a way to reduce that firebrand, knee jerk reaction that dictators like to educate their people with.

You also seem to suggest in your last few sentences two things - 1) that we need more dialogue with the Muslim ummah and 2) the assumed righteousness or superiority we have in "fixing" the evil side of the Muslim problem.

As to 1), we've had dialogue for years. Where has it taken us? We are much farther along with it in Iraq and Afghanistan than anywhere else - and we had to invade there.
2) I don't see "superiority" playing the game here. Superiority, perhaps, in firepower. But that only convinces armies we fight that they need to quit. Islamic fundamentalism doesn't care. Winning or losing is OK with them. Live for another day or get a basketful of virgins. Either way is acceptable and preferred.
"Righteousness", on the other hand, is very important. I'm not going to lay over and allow Sharia law anywhere in our democracy. And that is exactly what the CAIR folks and their band of brothers want to happen. Dhimmitude - a word spawned due to the multicultural "can't we all just get along" crowd - has no place in the West. That is, if we want to keep the West. There are some emotions that will drive principle. We need that. Righteousness for our cause is one of the emotions we should preserve.

By the way, dafyyd, I can't see any of the last three quotes in your post. The first, regarding the Pope's letter, was fine. The rest didn't come through. On either Firefox or IE.

Tblubrd:

I can't see any of the last three quotes in your post.

Tblubrd, what you saw is exactly what those groups had to say about the hysterical violence sweeping the Moslem world.

Dafydd

Hey, if I drag my cursor over the blank quote blocks I can highlight the nothing that CAIR and the rest are saying. Does that make it something after all, or less than nothing?

Dafydd, I think you can include another worthy point in your argument with nandrews: Islam as practiced by the jihadists is a religion that explicitly rejects reason, a failing much on display this week, and that’s why these American interest groups are especially culpable. These American Moslem interest groups, of all people, must be heard condemning the violent language and actions of those who claim to speak for all Moslems.

Debate on any issue in jihadist society is reduced to simple pedagogy, and anyone voicing a completely new position isn't just rejected, but instead they are freely killed, along with innocent bystanders, like this poor nun —all seemingly without criticism from much of the rest of the audience.

Until Moslems everywhere, but most especially here in America, speak up and defend reason and defend tolerant western beliefs, these jihadist cavemen will continue to kill whomever they please, whenever it suits them.

Daffyd is performing a huge public service calling these groups to account, just as the Australian government also did yesterday: we must demand these American Moslem groups speak up against jihadist savagery!

And nandrews, you blithely assert Dafydd is using the event in Somalia as ammunition in his argument with American Moslem groups, but really the "ammunition" is of course the very lack of outrage from those groups. Where are their words of condemnation and of disgust? It's a smear of the first order to say Daffyd, or anyone else criticizing American Moslem groups in this manner, are "lumping them all together", or using events like this one to "delegitimize" those groups he attacks.

Just the opposite is true: he seeks to have them stand up and be counted as forces for moderation, as voices for those Moslems who disagree-- and therebye demonstrate their legitimacy. It's astounding you want to give these groups a "free pass", when you should instead join him in this call, and not fearfully sit there telling him to "hush up and sit down".

You've voiced the supreme irony of all-- don't offend the poor Moslems, because you might provoke them!

Dafydd you are being to subtle, maybe you should edit and put

"Nothing"

or

"Total Silence"

in the appropriate places? rotflmao

Daffyd,

So Muslim groups "squeal like stuck pigs." A deliberately chosen simile.

You insist here that Muslim groups be judged harshly, by high standards for participation in public debate. Not because they have even said anything bad, in this case, but because of alleged sins of omission. But you plainly can't even maintain a seemly restraint on your own rhetoric.

C'mon, this isn't about civility, or personal responsibility, or any other shared value. It's just your own existential war against the "ummah." I'm not a party to that conflict, and I don't think you're doing a service to any other living soul by waging it.

MTF,

Dafydd obviously isn't merely trying to encourage Muslim groups to "stand up and be counted as forces for moderation." He's already convicted those groups. What he says about them is an effort to carry out a sentence. If you wish his intentions were closer to the way you've characterized them, well, I would agree with that.

Unbelievable.

Dafydd hasn't "convicted" anyone or any group, nor is he trying to "carry out a sentence" (whatever that's supposed to mean). He's doing nothing more than pointing out the obvious-- if Islam is to be respected then it's practitioners must speak out in defense of the Pope, and against jihadists. Must.

They must speak out in favor of tolerance, of peaceful debate and in defense of women, of homosexuals and in favor of religious freedom. Must.

Why “must”they? Not because I say so, or Dafydd says so, but because if they do not do so then they are complicit with the jihadists. Now is the perfect opportunity— American Moslems can speak up in defense of the Pope’s right to speak, and against the murder of the poor nun, and show us a new and different side of Islam.

Those in this country, like you, who want to wish the jihadist problem away by saying you personally haven't been attacked yet, you haven't had your office blown up, your throat cut, or your families violently deprived of a father or mother, are blindly and deliberately abdicating your personal responsibility as a citizen, and writing your own death warrant.

Nandrews3:

So Muslim groups "squeal like stuck pigs." A deliberately chosen simile.

I don't use a random-phrase generator; correct.

You insist here that Muslim groups be judged harshly, by high standards for participation in public debate.

Yes. As are we all.

Not because they have even said anything bad, in this case, but because of alleged sins of omission.

A "sin of omission" is still a sin, correct.

But you plainly can't even maintain a seemly restraint on your own rhetoric.

Nonsense. I restrain rhetoric all the time. For one example, I don't use obscenities, as do many in the blogosphere. For another, I cry out against, e.g., Rep. Tom Tancredo saying we should "bomb Mecca."

I suspect you've never read Big Lizards until just now, when some other blog alerted you to our existence. Search the blog for "Tancredo", and you can read what I've written in the past.

C'mon, this isn't about civility, or personal responsibility, or any other shared value. It's just your own existential war against the "ummah."

You don't find it telling that saying moderates in the ummah should speak up against crimes committed in their name is, in your mind, an "existential war" -- that is, a war to utterly destroy -- against the ummah?

Does that mean your position is that modernizing and moderating the ummah and insisting it behave as peaceably as does Christendom and Judaism -- no more, no less -- would destroy it?

Good heavens! I certainly don't believe that hysterical violence in the name of Allah is an integral part of Islam... why do you?

Dafydd obviously isn't merely trying to encourage Muslim groups to "stand up and be counted as forces for moderation." He's already convicted those groups.

If by "convicted" you mean "he already knows how those groups will react, because he knows their history," then yes again; I have followed their antics for many years.

I take it that they are blank slates to you, which implies to me that you've never even heard of them before. (See? More rhetorical restraint! I assume at the outset that you are not being disingenuous and simply pretending you don't know the history of, e.g., CAIR; rather, I take it as read that you simply don't know it.)

All right; there is too much information in the world for any one person to know it all. But then again, I'm not resonsible for lacunae in your life experience.

But do bear in mind that others here are quite familiar with CAIR and the other, more minor groups; we have seen their reactions (and just as important, their non-reactions) to world events involving Moslems; and we're not in the least surprised that they still, to this day, refuse to denounce the wave of violence and calls for the pope's assassination -- or even admit they are occurring -- even in a statement they just released today about the incident. (See next post.)

What he says about them is an effort to carry out a sentence.

No... calling for "capital punishment" against the pope is an attempt to carry out that sentence. Shooting a nun in the back -- if that were done in rage at Pope Benedict's remarks -- is a successful attempt to "carry out a sentence."

If you'll trouble to read what I wrote, you may notice that I called for no punishment of any sort against any of these groups.

Evidently, to you, whenever one observes the transgressions of Islamic groups, "free speech" ends; the observation itself must be considered doing them violence... as if their ears are so delicate they cannot withstand even the least criticism.

...Which is pretty much just how the Moslem mobs in the streets have been reacting since Day-1.

You're not doing your cause a favor by illustrating exactly what the pope decried. Has that occurred to you?

Dafydd

MTF:

American Moslems can speak up in defense of the Pope’s right to speak, and against the murder of the poor nun, and show us a new and different side of Islam.

Happily for all, one of those groups has! See next post.

Dafydd

Nandrews3,
You are in such a rush to assuem the position of dhimmitude that you seem to have run off and left your careful reading skills behind, probably right next to those critical thinking skills you have failed to display.

Kudos to nandrews3 for making a rational argument (in his second post). I appreciated it, even if I didn't agree with most of it.

I do agree that it would be beneficial to not UNNECESSARILY destroy any good will we can generate in the international community and within the muslim conscience. For example, the type of NGO soft power that brought about the velvet revoltions.

However, any such attempts WILL be completely undermined by the power structures in place, and in fact used as weapons against us by them.

The left has yet to come up with a plausible solution for that.

Lastly, in case you haven't noticed, the velvet revolutions have largely failed and those governments are reverting to form. I do not envy you trying to resolve why, for it will tax your world view.

Regards.

Dafydd-

Don’t know if you’ve already seen this column by Clifford D. May. Our local antique media rag finally deigned to publish it today. (Typical -- they wait until an issue is declining in newsworthiness until they print a column that doesn’t comport with their lefty world view.)

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)