“Good Christian B****es” should surprise nobody

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.

But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.

He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, ‘THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.’ ”

Brent Bozell points out the latest pop culture dumpster-swill to hit the TV, a show called GCB.

My reaction? Mostly yawns. This is to be expected from our brave, transgressive betters in Hollyweird. It’s always cool and titillating among their crowd to pick on Christians. We expect it, and tend not to fight back in any serious sense beyond withholding our financial support. Re-read the quote above, and you’ll understand why we often regard their disdain as an honor. Sinful and imperfect as we are, there’s also that whole Turn The Other Cheek thing to live up to.

I’ll give the secular progressives in the entertainment biz some credit for real courage if and when they ever take a similar swipe at muslims. Don’t hold your breath, though. That kind of thing tends to provoke a much more primitive and physical response from the targets.

I give GCB one season, tops.

Mark Steyn takes on Islamist kooks

Go read Mark Steyn’s latest column on Afghanistan citizen Abdul Rahman’s death sentence* for converting from Islam to Christianity. A few gems:

As always, we come back to the words of Osama bin Laden: ”When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.” That’s really the only issue: the Islamists know our side has tanks and planes, but they have will and faith, and they reckon in a long struggle that’s the better bet. Most prominent Western leaders sound way too eager to climb into the weak-horse suit and audition to play the rear end.

I can understand why the president and the secretary of state would rather deal with this through back-channels, private assurances from their Afghan counterparts, etc. But the public rhetoric is critical, too. At some point we have to face down a culture in which not only the mob in the street but the highest judges and academics talk like crazies.

They sure do talk like crazies, but they certainly are not crazy. And there are a lot of them.
* : Rahman has already been “freed” … sort of.

It’s time for cyberwar

I’ve read through the National Security Strategy for 2006 released last Friday by the White House, and overall it’s a hardheaded and realistic approach to dealing with current and future enemies. However, I think they missed something: aggressively conducting cyber warfare against jihadi web sites and bulletin boards.
For years now it’s been common knowledge (even in the mainstream media) that the Islamists use web sites and online bulletin boards to coordinate their efforts and recruit new adherents to their cause. They also use encrypted e-mail to transmit commands, coordinate their finances and handle logistics. The jihadis expertly manipulate the media into broadcasting their calls to jihad, their videotaped bombings, and worst of all the beheading of hostages.
Encouraging words, but where’s the follow-up?
Continuing a theme he’s advanced since 2002, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld noted last month:

We are fighting a battle where the survival of our free way of life is at stake. And the center of gravity of that struggle is not just on the battlefield. It is a test of wills and it will be won or lost with our public and the publics of free nations across the globe. We will need to do all we can to attract supporters to our efforts, to correct the lies being told which so damage our country, and shatter the appeal of the enemy. [emphasis added]

My first reaction to the speech was, “Great! Let’s start taking down their websites and bulletin boards and e-mail servers.” Based on Secretary Rumsfeld’s comments, I figured that there’d be something along those lines in today’s new National Security Strategy … but I don’t see it in there.
4/4/2007 Update: Is the behemoth finally waking up? Maybe.

New books on my nightstand

Last week I heard Tony Blankley discussing his new book about Islam on two radio talk shows (I believe they were Michael Medved and Laura Ingraham), and in the course of the conversations I heard that Robert Spencer had a new book out too. Naturally, I bought both.

They arrived yesterday, and I’m looking forward to reading them this week.

As knowledge grows, understanding grows

In a survey published on Friday, Cornell University called 715 Americans on the phone and asked them their attitudes toward Muslims. Some of the respondents indicated a willingness to impose certain restrictions on Muslims in America, but even more respondents opposed any restrictions on civil rights at all.

In all, about 44 percent said they believe that some curtailment of civil liberties is necessary for Muslim Americans.
Conversely, 48 percent of respondents nationally said they do not believe that civil liberties for Muslim Americans should be restricted.

When you see headlines in the next few days bemoaning the news that “nearly half” of Americans favor “curtailing the civil rights of Muslims”, try to remember that even more Americans do not favor any restrictions at all. By a 4% margin. In a poll with a margin of error of 3.6%. Got that?

The survey also examined the relation of religiosity to perceptions of Islam and Islamic countries among Christian respondents. Sixty-five percent of self-described highly religious people queried said they view Islam as encouraging violence more than other religions do; in comparison, 42 percent of the respondents who said they were not highly religious saw Islam as encouraging violence. In addition, highly religious respondents also were more likely to describe Islamic countries as violent (64 percent), fanatical (61 percent) and dangerous (64 percent). Fewer of the respondents who said they were not highly religious described Islamic countries as violent (49 percent), fanatical (46 percent) and dangerous (44 percent). But 80 percent of all respondents said they see Islamic countries as being oppressive toward women.

This isn’t surprising. I’d bet a pile of cash that if you do a survey of people who seriously practice Religion A, and ask them about their perceptions of serious believers in Religion B, there’s going to be a marked difference in perception as compared to the general non-religious population. By definition, serious believers think that they’ve found the truth. It’s no shock that they’d have misgivings about serious believers in a different religion, especially if the two groups make mutually exclusive claims about topics essential to one or both belief systems.

[James Shanahan, Cornell associate professor of communication and a principal investigator in the study] notes: “Most Americans understand that balancing political freedoms with security can sometimes be difficult. Nevertheless, while a majority of Americans support civil liberties even in these difficult times, and while more discussion about civil liberties is always warranted, our findings highlight that personal religiosity as well as exposure to news media are two important correlates of support for restrictions. We need to explore why these two very important channels of discourse may nurture fear rather than understanding.”

Duh.
If you’re convinced that Jesus is the unique Son of God, if you think Muhammad was no prophet, and if you pay attention to news reports of beheadings and suicide bombings carried out by self-professed followers of Muhammad, you’re probably going to feel some trepidation about Islam. Plus there’s that whole 9/11 thing, which probably matters to an American or two.
Next week, Cornell will report on the inexplicable correlation between committed belief in Judaism, knowledge of 20th Century history, and fear of fascism.

More coverage:
Jihad Watch
Little Green Footballs

Don’t cross the Dutch

The Netherlands are very friendly and quite liberal. Multiculturalism’s got a lot of fans among the Dutch, who are a polite and patient people. But when you repeatedly stomp on their toes and their collective fuse finally burns down … step back. They are not passive.
Theo van Gogh was a distant relative of the famous painter. He made movies, and his newest film, Submission, criticizes muslim attitudes toward (and abuse of) women. An Islamist recently demonstrated his disapproval of Van Gogh’s movie after spotting him on the street.

His attacker was a Dutch Moroccan who wore traditional Islamic clothing. After shooting van Gogh, he stabbed him repeatedly, slit his throat with a butcher knife, and left a note containing verses from the Qur’an on the body.

By “left a note”, Spencer means “pinned a note to the victim’s chest with two knives.”
Note to Islamists: don’t screw with the Dutch. See here and here and here and here and here and here and here … get the point?

UPDATE: Pieter Dorsman of Peaktalk is an American of Dutch extraction who’s covering the van Gogh murder and its fallout, and he’s doing it quite well (thanks for pointing this blog out, Arthur). Give Zacht Ei a look, too.
UPDATE 2: Professor Goose gets it.

270 million suicide bombers (UPDATED)

April 15, 2011 Update: It’s nice to be useful.
 


 
What with the recent spate of beheadings perpetrated by muslims in Iraq, this post from a few months back strikes a chord. I’ve reprinted it in its entirety.
 


 

Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy and forgiveness that should not be associated with acts of violence against the innocent.

After 9/11 and two wars, I’m skeptical of that claim, but until recently I had nothing but anecdotal evidence to lean on. This week, I went looking for facts to help me evaluate CAIR’s assertion. I originally thought that in the worst case, as many as 10% of Muslims might support suicide bombing. It turns out I’m a starry-eyed optimist. Over 270 million Muslims (that’s consistent with the over one third of all Muslims surveyed) approve of suicide bombings, if the data’s accurate.
I hope I’m overestimating, but unfortunately I think I’m right.
First, my sources. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press recently conducted two surveys of Muslim attitudes, one called “What the World Thinks in 2002” (12/4/2002) and the other called “A Year After Iraq War” (3/16/2004). Both reports listed the percentage of Muslim respondents who thought suicide bombings were acceptable. The pertinent part of the 2002 report covered Bangladesh, Ghana, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Lebanon, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. The pertinent part of the 2004 report covered Turkey, Pakistan, Morocco, and Jordan. I also looked through the CIA’s World Factbook to get demographic information on each country.
Next, my assumptions and biases. I’m assuming that the folks at The Pew Center and the CIA have published accurate information. I pray the Pew folks got wildly overstated results … but the pessimist in me doubts that. My bias has long been decidedly unfavorable toward Islam, and it’s been worse since 9/11. I’m an evangelical Christian conservative, a registered Republican, and a military veteran. I judge individual Muslims on their own behavior, and have known several quite nice ones. Nevertheless I consider Islam in general to be a threat to the Judeo-Christian culture and liberties that we enjoy here in America.
That said, let’s crunch the numbers. Approval rates for suicide bombing range from Uzbekistan’s 7% up to Jordan’s 86%. With 710,884,350 Muslims in these sixteen countries, an average of 38.3% approve of suicide bombings. That comes to 272,564,884 potential Muslim suicide bombers.
Anybody got a flak jacket I can borrow?
I can hear the protests already. “But that’s not a representative sample!” Alright, point taken. Perhaps the good folks at The Pew Center should ask people in more countries about their attitudes (assuming those dictatorships allow them in to begin with). Ask them about their chosen venues, not me. I just run their numbers. But fine, I’ll humor the Muslim apologists. Let’s cast a wider net right here and now.
Let’s add in twelve more places with significant Muslim populations: Afghanistan, Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, the USA, and the West Bank. We have demographic information from the CIA as before, but the Pew studies didn’t cover those countries, so we don’t know how many of these Muslims think suicide bombing is acceptable. For the sake of argument I’ll be insanely generous and estimate that it’s a mere 1%. I’ll go even further; in the USA and Israel I’ll call it just 0.1%, since Muslims in these two countries are presumably enlightened and moderate. I’ll even use CAIR’s very optimistic estimate of a U.S. Muslim population of seven million, just to show I’m a nice guy. With those estimates, what shakes out for these twelve countries/territories? We have 250,738,931 Muslims … 2,436,352 of whom are in favor of suicide bombing. Israel has only 893 of its own to watch out for. How many in America, land of the 99.9% peace-loving Muslim? Seven thousand.
Better get crackin’, Team Ashcroft.
Merge my incredibly low-ball estimates with the original Pew data, and we get 275,001,236 suicide bombing fans (28.6% of the total). Keep in mind that these figures are drastically skewed toward the low end because of my concession to the “99% peace-loving” meme. Any takers on whether the Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, and Palestinians show a smidgen more than 1% approval?
So, is this The Religion of Peace™? You be the judge.

Muslim death cultists aren’t subhuman

Again with the beheadings.

Today the Islamists have sawn off the head of Jack Hensley of Marietta, Georgia. Yesterday they sawed off the head of Eugene Armstrong of Hillsdale, Michigan.
I’m not surprised. Hopefully we’ll preserve our collective outrage over this, but I suspect this kind of thing’s already becoming blas&#233 in our jaded and media-saturated culture. Amid all the outrage expressed in the blogosphere, I’ve noticed a theme that needs correcting if we’re going to keep the right perspective. My blogging brethren often express their fury with epithets like “animals” and “subhuman scum” when they refer to the evil men who saw off captives’ heads in the name of a “merciful Allah.” It’s understandable to use those labels, but it’s not right because it lets these evil muslims off the hook for their actions.

We feel anger when we find out about these slaughters precisely because these evil men are more than just animals. They’re people, and that means they know better. When a cougar mauls a child, we hunt it down and kill it without much passion because it’s a dumb animal with no sense of morality. When men shoot fleeing children in the back or saw off the heads of helpless civilians, they earn our undying enmity because they know they’re committing evil.

For you left-leaning readers who feel uncomfortable with arguments based on right and wrong, think of this from a legal perspective. The Model Penal Code (which forms the basis for many states’ criminal codes) breaks down most crimes into four categories, asking whether the perpetrator committed the crime negligently, recklessly, knowingly, or purposefully. If a man fires a gun through a flimsy backstop in his backyard and the bullet accidentally kills his neighbor’s child, we’ll likely prosecute him for negligent homicide. But we hold him less culpable than the man who recklessly fires his gun into the air and kills the child playing in her yard two streets over. Worse still is the man who fires his rifle over a crowd of children, knowing he’ll probably kill someone. Worst of all is the man who fires a bullet into a fleeing child’s back for the purpose of killing her. Even our legal system emphasizes degrees of culpability and the importance of the perpetrator’s state of mind. It’s about as close to moral condemnation as our relativistic legal system ever gets.

I think the moral argument and our inherent sense of right and wrong provides the strongest foundation for holding these evil muslims responsible as people who consciously choose to do evil. You might find the legal approach more comfortable. Either way, intentions count for a lot.

From now on, I’m going to try extra hard not to understate the depths that these men have sunk to. I’m not going to call them animals or subhuman scum; these muslim death cultists are evil, and that’s why I’ll smile when they die violent and painful deaths.

I hope my fellow bloggers will do the same.

Enemies in our midst

The Diplomad thinks it’s about time to end the charade about Islam being a “religion of peace”, and apply to muslims some of the same restrictions that we once applied to communists, Nazis, and KKK members.

During the Cold War we faced such a foe, Soviet Communism; we adopted common sense measures at home to limit the ability of Communists to undermine our nation and way of life. Communists, for example, could not hold certain jobs in government or academia; they were denied security clearances; the CPUSA was treated as the agent of a hostile foreign power and was subject to penetration and surveillance by the FBI. Foreign Communists were ineligible for visas to the US or for citizenship. An infringement on the freedom of Communists? Yes. But given what we now all should know about the extent of Soviet espionage against the USA and the role that the CPUSA played in efforts to undermine America, those measures seem eminently reasonable. We have had similar restrictions on Fascists, Nazis, and KKK members. All justifiable.
Why do we have to treat Islam differently? Why do we all — starting with the President — have to recite the mantra of “Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace?” FLASH! Breaking News! It ain’t so! Islam as practiced in nearly every country of the world is a totalitarian ideology that openly advocates intolerance, death for non-believers, and relegates women to the status of cattle.

Some Muslims, admittedly, have begun to realize — ever so tepidly — that their civilization is a sick one. That they must reform it from within and take it away from the hate-mongers. But how long should we wait? How long should we pretend that the problem is NOT Islam, when, in fact, it is, or at least the Islam that has gained currency in the modern world.

I agree with the Diplomad’s assessment. We can’t afford any more frivolity toward the enemy. Since Islam as a whole refuses to cut out its Islamist parasites, then we have an obligation to enact certain quarantines.
Let’s start by closing our borders to everyone from Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, and the Sudan. Follow up by rounding up non-refugees from those countries. Send them home, and watch the remaining refugees closely. Infiltrate the mosques, tap the phones of muslim charities and civic organizations, screen 15- to 45-year-old Middle Easterners flying on our airlines the way El Al does, give our pilots guns, prohibit muslims from holding security clearances, and prevent muslim clerics from joining the military or recuiting new jihadis from among the prison population.
That’d be a start. Does anybody want to offer other suggestions for initial measures?

Roundup: Beslan school massacre

I have nothing new or unique to offer on the Beslan school massacre perpetrated by Islamists in Russia, other than my condolences and prayers (for comfort to the victims and neverending torment for the terrorists). Instead, I’ll just point you toward the best stuff I’ve found.
Michelle Malkin gathers key analyses of Russia’s 9/11.
So does Donald Sensing at One Hand Clapping.
Victor Davis Hanson thinks we should brace ourselves for terror attacks in the months ahead.
Dave Kopel has a suggestion on how to prevent a Beslan massacre here.
Mark Steyn calls it right: No other word for it but slaughter.
Wretchard at The Belmont Club wonders just what Vladimir Putin’s supposed to do, exactly?
Charles at Little Green Footballs points out a British muslim cleric who supports kidnapping women and children.
Getty Images has five pages of photographs. Blogs of War has a single photo of the aftermath.
The locals in Beslan caught one of the terrorists, lynched him, and tore him to pieces. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the Ossetians seek revenge on the Chechens sometime around November 7th (see the end of this story).

Islamist terror caused by sexual abuse: Chesler

An article by Phyllis Chesler looks at Islamist terrorism and the Arab world’s dysfunction, and lays the blame on a culture she says is secretly built on older males’ widespread physical and sexual abuse of boys, girls and women. The book on which she bases her article is not yet publicly available.
I’m inclined to lay the blame on the more obvious cause: Islam itself. Ideas create cultures, not vice versa.

270 million suicide bombers

 

Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy and forgiveness that should not be associated with acts of violence against the innocent.

After 9/11 and two wars, I’m skeptical of that claim, but until recently I had nothing but anecdotal evidence to lean on. This week, I went looking for facts to help me evaluate CAIR’s assertion. I originally thought that in the worst case, as many as 10% of Muslims might support suicide bombing. It turns out I’m a starry-eyed optimist. Over 270 million Muslims (that’s consistent with the over one third of all Muslims surveyed) approve of suicide bombings, if the data’s accurate.
I hope I’m overestimating, but unfortunately I think I’m right.
First, my sources. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press recently conducted two surveys of Muslim attitudes, one called “What the World Thinks in 2002” (12/4/2002) and the other called “A Year After Iraq War” (3/16/2004). Both reports listed the percentage of Muslim respondents who thought suicide bombings were acceptable. The pertinent part of the 2002 report covered Bangladesh, Ghana, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Lebanon, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. The pertinent part of the 2004 report covered Turkey, Pakistan, Morocco, and Jordan. I also looked through the CIA’s World Factbook to get demographic information on each country.
Next, my assumptions and biases. I’m assuming that the folks at The Pew Center and the CIA have published accurate information. I pray the Pew folks got wildly overstated results … but the pessimist in me doubts that. My bias has long been decidedly unfavorable toward Islam, and it’s been worse since 9/11. I’m an evangelical Christian conservative, a registered Republican, and a military veteran. I judge individual Muslims on their own behavior, and have known several quite nice ones. Nevertheless I consider Islam in general to be a threat to the Judeo-Christian culture and liberties that we enjoy here in America.
That said, let’s crunch the numbers. Approval rates for suicide bombing range from Uzbekistan’s 7% up to Jordan’s 86%. With 710,884,350 Muslims in these sixteen countries, an average of 38.3% approve of suicide bombings. That comes to 272,564,884 potential Muslim suicide bombers.
Anybody got a flak jacket I can borrow?
I can hear the protests already. “But that’s not a representative sample!” Alright, point taken. Perhaps the good folks at The Pew Center should ask people in more countries about their attitudes (assuming those dictatorships allow them in to begin with). Ask them about their chosen venues, not me. I just run their numbers. But fine, I’ll humor the Muslim apologists. Let’s cast a wider net right here and now.
Let’s add in twelve more places with significant Muslim populations: Afghanistan, Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, the USA, and the West Bank. We have demographic information from the CIA as before, but the Pew studies didn’t cover those countries, so we don’t know how many of these Muslims think suicide bombing is acceptable. For the sake of argument I’ll be insanely generous and estimate that it’s a mere 1%. I’ll go even further; in the USA and Israel I’ll call it just 0.1%, since Muslims in these two countries are presumably enlightened and moderate. I’ll even use CAIR’s very optimistic estimate of a U.S. Muslim population of seven million, just to show I’m a nice guy. With those estimates, what shakes out for these twelve countries/territories? We have 250,738,931 Muslims … 2,436,352 of whom are in favor of suicide bombing. Israel has only 893 of its own to watch out for. How many in America, land of the 99.9% peace-loving Muslim? Seven thousand.
Better get crackin’, Team Ashcroft.
Merge my incredibly low-ball estimates with the original Pew data, and we get 275,001,236 suicide bombing fans (28.6% of the total). Keep in mind that these figures are drastically skewed toward the low end because of my concession to the “99% peace-loving” meme. Any takers on whether the Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, and Palestinians show a smidgen more than 1% approval?
So, is this The Religion of Peace™? You be the judge.

VDH: “No more passes and excuses for the Middle East”

Victor Davis Hanson is dead on-target with “The Mirror of Fallujah“, his brutally honest take on the mess that is the Arab/Muslim world:

Rather the global village is beginning to see that the violence of the Middle East is not aberrant, but logical. Its misery is not a result of exploitation or colonialism, but self-induced.

If we are to try to bring some good to the Middle East, then we must first have the intellectual courage to confess that for the most part the pathologies embedded there are not merely the work of corrupt leaders but often the very people who put them in place and allowed them to continue their ruin.

I’m glad the folks in the White House read his stuff.

Ah, freedom …

The third gal from the right looks she’s like my type.

Veiled Iraqi women parade in Sadr City, a northern Baghdad, Iraq, neighborhood, Saturday April 3 2004. Thousands took part in a parade of the Al-Mehdi army, a shiite group founded by Muktada Al-Sadr. (AP Photo/Samir Mizban)

Hat tip: LGF