prole

Good thing that restoring electricity to Saddam-era levels of service was not one of those objectives.

They were worried that some might think Obama was just holding a box of Post American World cereal.

Except I wasn't the one that misspelled it, you syphilitic donkey-cunt.

Hmmm, now where have I heard this sort of thing before? It's telling that you find quotations from the 19th century so appropriate here as the kind of essentializing meme on display is fundamental to the white man's burden narrative. The objects are virtually interchangeable (Islamists, Jews, Vietnamese, Negroes, Natives) as are the terms used to describe them (lazy, stingy, violent, etc.) Whether the "true nature" stems from blood or creed, the pathology always lurks just beneath the surface. So, not suprisingly, it's all about "the will and capability to forcibly suppress" the recalcitrant savage. Bravo Jay, once again you've shown the more you open your mouth the more disgustingly clear your worldview becomes. Good luck with your invasion/forcible deprogramming/Koran-burning campaign (the only prescription that could come from such a rotten foundation), lord knows humanity's track record proves we'll need it. Yes - every person, culture, or nation that's been on the receiving end of Jihad since the seventh century has been a victim of the same "esentializing meme." Yawn. Tell us more about your 1300 years of white European victimization! You're a fraud and a douchebag.

Hmmm, now where have I heard this sort of thing before? It's telling that you find quotations from the 19th century so appropriate here as the kind of essentializing meme on display is fundamental to the white man's burden narrative. The objects are virtually interchangeable (Islamists, Jews, Vietnamese, Negroes, Natives) as are the terms used to describe them (lazy, stingy, violent, etc.) Whether the "true nature" stems from blood or creed, the pathology always lurks just beneath the surface. So, not suprisingly, it's all about "the will and capability to forcibly suppress" the recalcitrant savage. Bravo Jay, once again you've shown the more you open your mouth the more disgustingly clear your worldview becomes. Good luck with your invasion/forcible deprogramming/Koran-burning campaign (the only prescription that could come from such a rotten foundation), lord knows humanity's track record proves we'll need it.

1. The 1.05 billion or so Muslim moderates haven't had much luck using their nuanced understanding of the infinite number of platonic gradations between sufism and salfism to check their most ideologically committed, violent co-religionists. What, in your estimation, are the odds that a squishy renunciation, abnegation, or condemnation of Western values and the heritage of the enlightenment will inspire them to ease up on the jihad against the infidels? In mine - the number is indistinguishable from zero, and is only likely to supplant their hatred of the west with contempt. I'd rather deal with the former than the latter. 2. What historical evidence do you have to support your claim that violent conquest in the service of religious domination is a novel feature of 20th century Islam that had it's sole genesis in colonial domination? The history of Islam from ~AD 650 onwards has been one of violent conquest. Conquer, then kill, convert, or subjugate. These acts have inspired and justified by the central tenets of the faith from the get-go. In your account of history, was Charles Martel confronted by folks who traveled to France with no violent intentions as part of a "peaceful inner struggle?" So now your problem is with the "most ideologically committed, violent co-religionists". Certainly a step in the right direction though you backslide almost immediately with the "conquer, kill, subjugate" rhetoric. You seem confused. Which is it? Still unanswered is the question why some strains of militant political Islam are so particularly potent now. In spite of your insistence that violent conquest is central to Islam, it certainly wasn't causing any discernable rumpus on the world stage for hundreds of years. You know, while the colonial powers were actually doing exactly what you claim to find so abhorrent. Why are people finding fundamentalisms of all kinds (ethnicity, nationalism, religious) so attractive right now and seemingly leaving liberalism and "western" values in droves? Can your Mr. Mackey of a theory answer that or not?

Just got this gem in my email: The caption reads, "This picture will stun you. THIS WILL CURDLE YOUR BLOOD AND CURL YOUR HAIR The name of the book Obama is reading is called: The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow Muslim. "Post" America means the world After America! Please forward this picture to everyone you know, conservative or liberal." What should I do?

Hopefully one that a drone was flying over [video:youtube]

Thanks for reposting the hate-screed. Should replay well with your people in Murfreesboro. Well, first what I'd argue for is a more nuanced approach recognizing different practices within Islam. While I'm sure you agree, you seem to want to play both sides: pushing for modernization and moderation while making sweeping generalizations and condemning the religion and its followers as a whole. Secondly, I'd argue for an historical approach that understands contemporary Islam and especially its militant political variant in context in order to formulate policies that can help undercut extremism and the process of radicalization. As your boy points out above, the Old Testament is far more bloodthirsty a text than the Koran, yet we see far less extremism and acting on the basis of those texts amongst Christians and Jews. Why? Treating Islam as a monolithic, abstracted, timeless construct is as an analytical dead end as trying to understand kamakazi attacks as the inevitable outgrowth of Shinto. But of course for folks with as many cold-war skeletons (not to mention more recent policy catastrophes) in the closet as your friends have, I can understand your reluctance to go there.

Is there anyone here that is?

Good luck with your "Islam's bad, mmm'kay" approach, Jay.

Apparently, they're so obvious that it's not even necessary to speak of them, much less apply a similar historical analysis to contemporary Islam and its modern political and economic contexts. What a joke.

Lick sack.

The truth of the above statements are not what's at issue. It's your timing. But we're used to tolerating you being an asshole.

Glad to see you're on board. Given the real context of the conversation (there's that reality-stuff again), it would seem that now would be a good time to emphasize the tolerance part and leave your "repulsion" and "they're coming for white clits!" talk for later on. Unless your intention really is to come off like a bigot that really doesn't want the mosque built and is willing to stoke general fear and hatred for specific activities while championing the moral high ground. A hollow "tolerance" that's actually devoid of any difference.

The rednecks will defend you, Jay!

And some people complain that Obama's "too black"...

[video:youtube]

NO GIMMICKS!! [video:youtube]

Don't worry folks, it's not going to be political.

FUCK IF I KNOW BUT IM GOING TO FIND OUT AT THE GLENN BECK FREEDOM RALLY THIS WEEKEND!!! -message sent from iPad-

OMGWTF NOW IM REALLY ANGRY!!! GOD I HOPE SOMEONE COMES ALONG TO CHANNEL MY RAGE AND SOON!!!

Homo Bonobo