Eduard Benes, leader of post-WW2 Czechoslovakia, who drafted decrees to deport millions of Germans, including Czech citizens.
It's not Denial -- though it seems to be closely related. The D word is Deportation.
Once again, I see on Jihad Watch comments a chatter named "abad" (not one of the Rabbit Pack, of course) call for the West (specifically, Europe) to round up all its Muslims and deport them:
Every single Muslim in Europe needs to be rounded up and deported to Saudi Arabia or Syria.
They simply do not belong in Europe.
They simply do not belong in Europe.
Naturally, the Rabbit Pack (Angemon foremost, then gravenimage, Mirren Wellington, Western Canadian PRCS, JayBoo, dumbledoresarmy, Joe Blow) did not swoop in to chastise abad; perhaps because since it was one lone comment, it would slip by unnoticed.
"Look, dummy...for the thousandth time - we're all in for deporting all of the Moslems. I've ALWAYS been in favor of that."
I guess that I am just one confused soul, that just doesn’t “get
it”. We are at war with mohammedans. When, in history, did any nation
send enemy combatants back to their homeland, during the time of war?
Are they (mohammedans) wearing civilian clothing? Does that not, under the rules of war, make them enemy spies?
Is not the penalty for spies, during time of war, execution?
Someone, please explain all of this “deport” talk.
I'm glad someone in that arid desert of Planet Jihad Watch is asking these questions at all, but Lanya's way of framing them is problematic.
First off, that last sentence -- "Someone, please explain all of this "deport" talk." Unless her English is somewhat rusty, there hasn't been "all of this deport talk" on Jihad Watch coments. It's been quite the opposite in fact -- a veritable desert of Not Talking About (Total) Deportation. As far as I know -- and I have read and commented on Jihad Watch for years -- I was the only person ever to bring it up, and because I did it persistently often in an in-your-face way, I was routinely pestered, mocked, and attacked by Angemon and Philip Jihadski (both of them calling me a Nazi, among many other insults, while the other members of the Rabbit Pack usually ignored these attacks on me, and if I brought them up, they would then notice, and attack me, not reprove their colleagues). Occasionally, that stolid, stuffy gentleman of the Rabbit Pack, Wellington, would weigh in with his defense of the Box he's in about this subject ("You can't deport citizens" etc.), about which I've devoted a few essays here on my blog.
Secondly, Lanya's first question -- When, in history, did any nation send enemy combatants back to their homeland, during the time of war? -- sets the stage for the fallacy of Fighting This War Like the Last War. The Mohammedan war against us is unique in many ways. It would be a strategic mistake for us to insist that we have to apply maxims & axioms from other wars to this one. The West must be flexibly casuistic as we go through the long, complex process of Waking Up. One of the unique features of the Mohammedan war is that there is no essential difference between enemy combatants and civilians -- either for them, or for us. Lanya goes on to flesh out her question:
Are they (mohammedans) wearing civilian clothing? Does that not, under the rules of war, make them enemy spies?
Well, yes and no. Yes, it effectively makes, of all Muslims who seem to be non-combatants, enemy spies. But we mustn't fall into the trap of the Box again, and assume that "spy" and "espionage" with Muslims must mean the exact same thing it does in our experience with our previous wars. Lanya's Box Logic goes from A to B to C: "Wait a second, in previous wars, we have dealt with spies not by deporting them, but by executing them. So if they are spies, why don't we just execute them? What is all this Deport talk? It's hurting my head!"
Either Lanya is perfectly content with the West rounding up all its Muslims and executing them, or she is maneuvering her rhetorical questions to have the effect of undermining Deportation on the same grounds as one would logically and morally (if not perhaps also pragmatically) reject Mass Executions. At any rate, we need to apply casuistry (approaching the problem on a case-by-case basis) when dealing with this problem. The Mohammedan War against us is a case to examine, which is a hexagonal peg we examine without insisting it must be forced into a square hole. In fact, it is a unique peg, for which we have no hole to fit it into. We must create a new hole that accomodates its unique form & features. And as we apply casuistry, which puts practical thinking above theoretical thinking, we keep foremost in our mind the pragmatic exigency of protecting our societies from eventual destruction.
The question which the D-Word Demurrers need to think about is this:
Is it possible that total deportation of Muslims will be the only way -- short of genocide -- to protect our societies from eventual destruction at the hands of Mohammedans?
If you say it's not possible, present an argument defending that position. If you think it's possible, do you then believe we should err on the side of assuming its high probability, on the basis that not doing so would have devastating consequences for our future generations and for the precious civilization our forbears have labored so wonderfully hard to create?
If you don't think we should err on the side of assuming its high probability, present an argument defending that position.
Rather than entertain these questions, and mull over them, and discuss them, the D-Word Demurrers prefer to jibber-jabber on the level of their pre-fab axioms from their Box -- when they're not spending most of their time complaining about Islam and the Leftists who enable them.
Are they (mohammedans) wearing civilian clothing? Does that not, under the rules of war, make them enemy spies?
Is not the penalty for spies, during time of war, execution?
Someone, please explain all of this “deport” talk.
I'm glad someone in that arid desert of Planet Jihad Watch is asking these questions at all, but Lanya's way of framing them is problematic.
First off, that last sentence -- "Someone, please explain all of this "deport" talk." Unless her English is somewhat rusty, there hasn't been "all of this deport talk" on Jihad Watch coments. It's been quite the opposite in fact -- a veritable desert of Not Talking About (Total) Deportation. As far as I know -- and I have read and commented on Jihad Watch for years -- I was the only person ever to bring it up, and because I did it persistently often in an in-your-face way, I was routinely pestered, mocked, and attacked by Angemon and Philip Jihadski (both of them calling me a Nazi, among many other insults, while the other members of the Rabbit Pack usually ignored these attacks on me, and if I brought them up, they would then notice, and attack me, not reprove their colleagues). Occasionally, that stolid, stuffy gentleman of the Rabbit Pack, Wellington, would weigh in with his defense of the Box he's in about this subject ("You can't deport citizens" etc.), about which I've devoted a few essays here on my blog.
Secondly, Lanya's first question -- When, in history, did any nation send enemy combatants back to their homeland, during the time of war? -- sets the stage for the fallacy of Fighting This War Like the Last War. The Mohammedan war against us is unique in many ways. It would be a strategic mistake for us to insist that we have to apply maxims & axioms from other wars to this one. The West must be flexibly casuistic as we go through the long, complex process of Waking Up. One of the unique features of the Mohammedan war is that there is no essential difference between enemy combatants and civilians -- either for them, or for us. Lanya goes on to flesh out her question:
Are they (mohammedans) wearing civilian clothing? Does that not, under the rules of war, make them enemy spies?
Well, yes and no. Yes, it effectively makes, of all Muslims who seem to be non-combatants, enemy spies. But we mustn't fall into the trap of the Box again, and assume that "spy" and "espionage" with Muslims must mean the exact same thing it does in our experience with our previous wars. Lanya's Box Logic goes from A to B to C: "Wait a second, in previous wars, we have dealt with spies not by deporting them, but by executing them. So if they are spies, why don't we just execute them? What is all this Deport talk? It's hurting my head!"
Either Lanya is perfectly content with the West rounding up all its Muslims and executing them, or she is maneuvering her rhetorical questions to have the effect of undermining Deportation on the same grounds as one would logically and morally (if not perhaps also pragmatically) reject Mass Executions. At any rate, we need to apply casuistry (approaching the problem on a case-by-case basis) when dealing with this problem. The Mohammedan War against us is a case to examine, which is a hexagonal peg we examine without insisting it must be forced into a square hole. In fact, it is a unique peg, for which we have no hole to fit it into. We must create a new hole that accomodates its unique form & features. And as we apply casuistry, which puts practical thinking above theoretical thinking, we keep foremost in our mind the pragmatic exigency of protecting our societies from eventual destruction.
The question which the D-Word Demurrers need to think about is this:
Is it possible that total deportation of Muslims will be the only way -- short of genocide -- to protect our societies from eventual destruction at the hands of Mohammedans?
If you say it's not possible, present an argument defending that position. If you think it's possible, do you then believe we should err on the side of assuming its high probability, on the basis that not doing so would have devastating consequences for our future generations and for the precious civilization our forbears have labored so wonderfully hard to create?
If you don't think we should err on the side of assuming its high probability, present an argument defending that position.
Rather than entertain these questions, and mull over them, and discuss them, the D-Word Demurrers prefer to jibber-jabber on the level of their pre-fab axioms from their Box -- when they're not spending most of their time complaining about Islam and the Leftists who enable them.
