Monday, December 26, 2016

Muslims in the West: A "basket of Deportables"...?

https://idontsleepiwriteblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/wolforiginal_30852062.jpg
In the comments thread of a recent Jihad Watch report about a 20-something Italian female who converted to Islam then decided to join the Jihad in Syria and martyr herself in order to kill Unbelievers, a commenter, one "John A. Marre" (not part of the Rabbit Pack, those staunch counter-jihadists) very sensibly called for the deportation of anyone who converts to Islam; and he based this (implicitly) on the argument that such a conversion should be recognized by the West as an abdication of their citizenship, rendering them deportable.

(Of course, this would apply to any and all Muslims, not just Western converts to Islam; though this point was about Muslims who happen to be born in the West.)

Leave it to the Energizer Bunny of the Rabbit Pack, one "Angemon", to zoom in to pester the commenter with one of the standard, silly questions that inevitably bubble up to the surface as an expression of the gas in the brains of those in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream who seem to have difficulty connecting the dots they've been learning all these years from Jihad Watch.

Anyone who converts to that gutter religion has willingly given up his or her citizenship, and has lost the right to live in the country of their birth, and must be deported.
(I note that, true to form, the other main members of the Rabbit Pack -- gravenimage, Wellington, Champ, Mirren -- are all busy commenting all around Angemon's comment against John A. Marre; and, naturally, they do nothing to defend the latter and opt to simply pretend nothing happened -- if, indeed, they don't positively agree with Angemon's retort.)

I've been through this point with Angemon many a time before, back when I was commenting on Jihad Watch myself.  First off, his rhetorical question implies the preposterous notion that the Muslim who happens to be born in, say, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA, cannot physically be deported to any Muslim land outside of the West (there are no Muslim lands inside the West -- yet).  More specifically, Angemon's rhetorical question implies that there exists no physical place in the world to physically deport said Muslim.

This is obviously, patently incorrect.  There are, in fact, millions of square miles of real estate comprised by what is known as "the Muslim world", from Indonesia near the Pacific all the way to Morocco on the Atlantic.  So why did Angemon put his question this way?  He seems to be trying to conflate a physical impossibility (both of transporting the Muslim, and of relocating him to his new destination of deportation), with some kind of technical legal point.  While doing so, he is through his rhetoric hiding the latter point in the clothing of the former point.

Once we disrobe that latter, technical-legal point and examine it, we find that it comes into dissonance with a competing point of Islamic jihad.  To analyze this, however, seems to take more intelligence than Angemon is capable of.  Indeed, Robert Spencer -- in the introduction to a recent report on Jihad Watch concerning how some Tunisians don't want Tunisian terrorists to return to Tunisia -- put the point rather well:

First, Spencer quotes the President of Tunisia who said:

“Many of them want to return, and we can’t prevent a Tunisian from returning to his country.”

Then Spencer made his point:

European authorities say the same thing about people whose roots in the country to which they wish to return are far less deep. The objection to this line of reasoning is that in joining the Islamic State... these Tunisians and Europeans have explicitly or implicitly declared their allegiance to the caliphate, a government that denies that Muslims owe loyalty to any other government, and considers itself to be at war with those other governments. They are, in effect, combatants of an enemy state, and should be treated accordingly.

(Naturally, Angemon posted a comment on that thread, blithely ignoring and avoiding Spencer's point -- the central point, in fact, of the whole report.)

The only problem I see with Spencer's comment is that Spencer does not go far enough to make explicit what remains implicit in his remark.  Undoubtedly, Spencer would not make the logical extrapolation from his own logic and come to the logical conclusion:  Namely, that all Muslims are deportable, not just "Islamists" or "jihadists".  This is so, we must reasonably assume, because all Muslims, by virtue of being Muslims, have explicitly or implicitly declared their allegiance to Islam (joined at the hip to the Caliphate, which was dismantled by the West in 1923 against the will of Muslims worldwide and for which we must reasonably assume they all yearn to be restored) -- Islam, a trans-national ideological entity that denies that Muslims owe loyalty to any other government, and considers itself to be at war with those other governments. They are, in effect, combatants of an enemy state, and should be treated accordingly.

And we should add that their jihad against the rest of the world comprises many different styles & modes of warfare, the most common, perhaps, being that of stealth.  And the jihad subset of stealth also involves many styles & modes; the most prevalent being what I have called the "Jihad of Just Being Here":

...merely settling in, setting down roots, getting jobs, raising families, having sandwiches, walking around in the streets, shopping, going to school, attending college, joining gyms, etc., all non-verbally telegraphing two amorphously pervasive messages: 

1) "We're here, we are insinuating our threads into your cultural fabric, get used to it."

2) "See? We're not all 'extremists' -- in fact most of us are just moms and pops like you all.  So please don't be a paranoid Islamophobe; rise above that to be a tolerant, unbigoted Westerner who can see past the intolerant rhetoric and can welcome Muslims into your society, the vast majority of whom mean you no harm."

And, of course, the ethical narcissism of the vast majority of Westerners, anxious to avoid being "bigoted" and "racist", dovetails perfectly with this implicit message.

50 comments:

Nobody said...

Hesperado, Angemon is technically right in that no country in the world would agree to take back, say, a Jose Padilla or anyone who's merely converted to Islam. Despite all their rhetoric in the OIC and elsewhere, when it actually comes time to standing up w/ their 'Muslim brothers', they suddenly disappear. If only Muzzies outside dar ul Islam would vanish just as easily

I do agree that anybody who embraces Islam has forfeited his Western citizenship, but since s/he is not entitled to the citizenship of a Bosnia or a Pakistan or a Saudi Arabia or a Syria, the best thing to do would be to arrest him and go after him aggressively for sedition. Yeah, that throws open 1st Amendment issues, but one way around that would be something like a petition that Rob Scott posted here and elsewhere some years ago that would de-recognize Islam as a 'religion' as far as 1st Amendment protections go

One good way to call the bluff of OIC countries, since they would probably be at the forefront of condemning such a move, would be to observe which country(ies) take the initiative on this anti-Western move, and then arrange to deport the new convert there. In fact, such a convert would then be a refugee, and it'll give them an incentive to take him. Let's say that Iran decided to condemn the US for doing this: then deport Achmed to Iran. It may be another thing that most countries outside the west have no use for anyone who ain't already a contributing member of society, so such a move would end up in a tug of war. But it would be useful to expose the (already well known) hypocrisy of these Muslim countries

Richard James said...

Nobody said:

Hesperado, Angemon is technically right in that no country in the world would agree to take back, say, a Jose Padilla or anyone who's merely converted to Islam.


Not our problem.

An old war is in a new and very dangerous phase. Whether or not countries would agree to take in recent converts to Islam is irrelevant. Whether those converts are from immigrant communities or can trace back their western ancestry for centuries is irrelevant.

All that matters is that they be expelled from our countries and our civilization. If they are rendered stateless, if they have to live in lands where life is miserable not to say hellish, if they die of starvation or disease as a result of their expulsion, is irrelevant. By becoming Muslims, just as by merely being Muslims, they have declared themselves our enemies and a perpetual existential threat not only to our societies but to our very lives.

We are not Muslims, we do not believe that laws are eternal and can never be changed and improved. We must change our own laws so that we can expel all Muslims purely for being Muslims. For the long-term survival of the West and for the survival of all non-Muslim societies and peoples it is essential that all Muslims be expelled, whatever their ethnic background, whatever their place of birth and ancestry, whatever their original religious background or lack of it, whether or not they are Muslims by birth or conversion.

The legal framework and the political will for expulsion may not be in place yet but for the survival of our way of life and the future of our children we must bring about those changes and remove the toxic presence of Islam and Muslims from our civilization and eventually from the World.

Hesperado said...

Thanks Richard James for a superb response to Nobody. I've known Nobody for years, and he always impressed me as being one of the clearest-eyed opponents of Islam; however, this time he failed. I spent a day mulling over whether I wanted to write a comment explaining why he's so devastatingly wrong about this point, but my soul was just too dispirited (for, every time I see an opponent of Islam blurt out weak-kneed propositions -- and it happens all too often -- it reaffirms my foreboding pessimism about the survival of the West). So thanks for articulating well what needed to be articulated.

Only two things I'd add:

When Nobody said -- "Angemon is technically right in that no country in the world would agree to take back..."

-- right away, I knew something was amiss. Angemon didn't say that. All he said was:

"Deported where if they were born there?"

A stupid question implying that a person born in Italy who joins Islam in order to kill Unbelievers (and that was what the JW article was about) cannot be physically removed from Italy and sent to a country that believes in the same Islam.

Secondly, I would just second Richard James in the "who cares?" stance, in terms of deporting Muslims to Muslim lands which won't want to receive them. We should not ask them for permission. We should fly over, say Sudan (or just pick a country by throwing a dart blindfolded at a map of the Umma) with a fleet of cargo planes loaded up with Muslims (issued free parachutes and a complementary backpack filled with food, water, Bibles, and Playboy magazines), then just drop them out the bay doors in groups of ten, twenty, fifty, whatever. (For the USA) How many cargo planes would it take to relocate three million Muslims? How many missions repeated? How to round them up in the first place? All details for a society that put a man on the moon and invented the Internet. Every last Western country has this ability, technically, economically and physically. They only lack the will. Will we be able to relocate every last Muslim? Will some fall through the cracks? I can just see Angemon, zooming in to say, essentially, that if something is not perfect, it should not be done (though he'd never have the brains or balls to put his nonsense as bluntly). And not a single law would have to be changed. All we have to change is our grasp of what Muslims are: an enemy army (however "diverse" their modes of warfare are, including the mode of pretending not to be at war with us) already having killed our civilians and already having destroyed infrastructure in order to unnerve us, terrorize us, drain our economies -- killing and terrorizing us now (and, of course, lying about it and burrowing deeper in stealth mode) -- and planning far worse in the decades ahead as long as we don't remove them.

Nobody said...

Hesperado & Richard, I'm not against them being deported involuntarily to a country of our choice. I just don't see that happening given the inclination of not just PCMC activists, but also the courts, to prevent it from happening if it's not something agreed b/w the US and whichever Muslim country is mentioned.

Hesperado said...

Note:

I just re-read my own comment and wanted to clarify (not that I need to for those who can think) that when I wrote:

We should fly over, say Sudan (or just pick a country by throwing a dart blindfolded at a map of the Umma) with a fleet of cargo planes loaded up with Muslims (issued free parachutes and a complementary backpack filled with food, water, Bibles, and Playboy magazines), then just drop them out the bay doors in groups of ten, twenty, fifty, whatever.

I didn't mean, drop the Muslims from the planes without a parachute. We should provide them with nice, fully functioning white silk parachutes (although I wouldn't mind it if we told each group that among the parachutes they will be accorded, an indeterminable number "may malfunction, perhaps intentionally, perhaps not" on the way down. Just a small way to repay them for the years, decades, motherfucking centuries of terror and anxiety (not to mention violent horrors) their fellow Muslims (if not some of them themselves), in the name of the same Islam they believe in, have caused us.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hesperado,
centuries of terror We could mention their decades of whining and propagandizing as well. Indeed, they have been so effective at it, that Prince-shall-I-never-be-king?-Charles has recently said that poor Muhammed was ethnically cleansed from Mecca. "I mean to say, Good lord Carstairs, haven't those unfortunate Muslims been treated shabbily?"

We ought not to care one bit that any particular Muslim convert who adopts the transnational idea of being one of Allah's camel slaves among the Ummah has no place to go, no citizenship anywhere else. After all, what the hell is the Islamic State for?

Yorick of Snarkinore

Hesperado said...

Nobody said...

"Hesperado & Richard, I'm not against them being deported involuntarily to a country of our choice. I just don't see that happening given the inclination of not just PCMC activists, but also the courts, to prevent it from happening if it's not something agreed b/w the US and whichever Muslim country is mentioned."

Sure, Nobody. However, that's a different issue from what your comment implied. Laws and cultural climate are not part of immoveable Nature; they flow from the people who constitute them. The situation is a protracted emergency leading to our doom. Unless we shift, we will be destroyed. We won't shift unless more and more individuals think -- and speak -- the fashionably Unthinkable. For voices in the Counter-Jihad -- the one place where such a paradigm shift is possible to begin -- to actually do their part to reinforce the obstacle to that shift, by reinforcing the "we can't deport Muslims" meme in various ways (including conflating what we should and can do, with what we are not doing only because of cultural inhibitions), indicates that my pessimism about the West's chances of surviving this 21st century is grimly well-founded.

Anonymous said...

The Lying Donkey:

"When Nobody said -- "Angemon is technically right in that no country in the world would agree to take back..."

-- right away, I knew something was amiss. Angemon didn't say that. All he said was:

"Deported where if they were born there?"

A stupid question implying that a person born in Italy who joins Islam in order to kill Unbelievers (and that was what the JW article was about) cannot be physically removed from Italy and sent to a country that believes in the same Islam."


________________________________________________________________________


Liar. Angemon asked you innumerable times about the laws required to do that. And what to do if the receiving country refused to take moslems. You never replied to him, jackass.

You're a disgrace to the CJ, Bobby, and you deserve to choke on your lies and rot away in your nasty little obscure blog, replying to your own posts. You're in this for yourself and JihadWatch is all the better withour your braying, Donkey.

Hesperado said...

"Anonymous" is the Jihad Watch veteran who goes by the names when commenting there of "Philip Jihadski" and "JoeBlow" (probably other names, but those are the only two I've had the displeasure of coming to know). His manner is uncouth and so obtuse, it resembles a bag of rocks. Part of his obtuseness is in lashing out with the accusation of "liar!" when it doesn't apply (much less when he has no proof of it). The comments sections of my blog here is littered with his hamfisted accusations and specious attacks on me, if a reader would want to spend his time browsing through going back through the year of 2016 (and possibly also 2015).

"Philip Jihadski" is a part of the "Rabbit Pack" (about which I've written many a time over the past year) over at Jihad Watch comments; but easily the most intemperate and dumb among them.

At any rate, in this comment here, he starts off with a bang, accusing me of being a liar because I told Nobody that Angemon didn't say what Nobody said he did. Nobody was responding to the quote from Angemon that I provided in my essay; it was Nobody's who ascertained the extra element in Angemon's comment which was not in the words Angemon typed to respond to John A. Marre.

"Philip Jihadski" then compounds this initial mistake by claiming that Angemon asked me numerous times before by going to say:

"Angemon asked you innumerable times about the laws required to do that. And what to do if the receiving country refused to take moslems. You never replied to him, jackass. "

Now, I would accuse "Philip Jihadski" of being a "liar" like he likes to do; it's possible that he never saw the times I did respond to the stupid points of Angemon on this matter, when I said more or less what I've said in this essay and in my comment above to Richard James. What I said many times (also to another of the Rabbit Pack, Wellington) is that we don't need to change any laws, once we recognize that all Muslims are our enemy and are waging a unique war against us now (in which thousands of our people have already died, and many more will die, and if we don't take proactive measures in time, we will be destroyed -- not just America, but the whole Wexst). Every free nation, every democracy, every republic, has a right to protect itself. And once we recognize the nature of this unique enemy, "protecting ourself" adequately will have to entail total deportation. The longer we wait to wake up to this, the more likely will be our doom.

Secondly, "Philip Jihadski" repeats the asinine objection about whether the destination country to where we would deport Muslims "refused to take moslems". As I said here above, more than once, who gives a flying fuck whether a Muslim nation refuses. We airlift the Muslims over their land and drop them en masse (see my first comment to Richard James above), and we won't even ask permission. Call it "Operation FU".

Anonymous said...

The Lying Dummy:

"Part of his obtuseness is in lashing out with the accusation of "liar!" when it doesn't apply (much less when he has no proof of it)."

And:

"At any rate, in this comment here, he starts off with a bang, accusing me of being a liar because I told Nobody that Angemon didn't say what Nobody said he did."

________________________________________________________________________


God, you're dumb, Bob. I called you a liar because you lied about Angemon saying that comverts are physically unable to be deported from one place to another. You had to cover that lie with another. You lied about me lying, jackass. And you keep lying because you're insane. You're a narcissistic prick consumed with hatred of Philip Jihadski and Angemon because they exposed you for the fraud you are. And the people you called "Brutuses" and "former friends"? They're all the better for getting you out of their lives.


More from Dr. Donkey:


"What I said many times (also to another of the Rabbit Pack, Wellington) is that we don't need to change any laws, once we recognize that all Muslims are our enemy and are waging a unique war against us now (in which thousands of our people have already died, and many more will die, and if we don't take proactive measures in time, we will be destroyed -- not just America, but the whole Wexst)."


______________________________________________________________________


What laws, Donkey Boy? What laws let you take an American moslem convert and drop them somewhere? Remember, according to you "we don't need to change any laws" so they must already be in place.

Get one thing in your thick head, Bobby: we have this called the Constitution, which, in the case of moslems who are citizens of the USA, prevents us from “forcibly deporting” a moslem, simply because they are a moslem. Espousing this notion, which you have obviously done, and which – YES – shows that you ARE ignorant of our laws – leads to a very slippery slope. The question begs, “Who’s next – the Catholics, the Atheists, the Jews? What you are espousing, as I said very clearly, is the beginnings of a NAZIesque police state, where people (read: 12 year-old nominally moslem girls, who are seeking a way to get out of Islam and their honor-killing ways) are deported to their deaths, because we suddenly foregone all of our Constitutional protections. And yes – you ARE willingly ignorant of this.

Anonymous said...

Finally:

"Secondly, "Philip Jihadski" repeats the asinine objection about whether the destination country to where we would deport Muslims "refused to take moslems". As I said here above, more than once, who gives a flying fuck whether a Muslim nation refuses. We airlift the Muslims over their land and drop them en masse (see my first comment to Richard James above), and we won't even ask permission. Call it "Operation FU"."
________________________________________________


You never answered the most pertinent question posed by Philip Jihadski and Angemon: how do you tell who is a moslem? Tell us again how that is going to happen – will you round them up according to ‘traditional garb’ – or possibly, ‘brown skin’? What if they lie? How do you know who the moslems are? What about the nominal moslems, who fear for their lives and are only seeking a way out of the mess? You're going to round up all 'brown-skinned', 'middle-eastern' looking people you see and drop them somewhere else?

Philip Jihadski and Angemon have, on many occasions inquired as to, exactly, how you intend to go about his dream of Total Deportation. You never answered, nor have you ever given any, pragmatic instructions as to how to carry it out. Now here is the evil in what you desire:

In NAZI Germany, literally thousands of Jews (practicing, nominal, non-practicing – whatever) were deported to places outside of Germany (mainly, Poland, at first), in an effort to create a JewFree Germany.

Dr. Jackass seeks to create a Muslim Free United states, by deporting them all. Herein lies the rub: many, many of those “Jews” were not Jews, AT ALL! They were “ratted out” by neighbors who had personal beefs, or those who seek favor with the NAZIs by telling lies (much as Voegy does on these page) and condemning people to death.

What happens, for example, if we deport a, say, 12 year-old girl (nominally moslem, but trying to escape the clutches of her famiy and Islam) by force, according to Dr. Voegy’s wild-eyed NAZIesque scheme?

Well, let me tell you what happens – Donkey Boy then has the blood of that innocent girl on HIS hands!

Yes, he is no better than a NAZI, in this regard. He sees a moslem in every brown-skinned person, in every Middle Eastern-looking individual, etc.

His little scheme is incredibly dangerous and fraught with possibility of mistake.

Now, to conclude, I absolutely advocate the deportation of all moslems who can legally be deported. Other than that, I refuse to have Hitleresque blood on my hands.

Anonymous said...

Finally:

"Secondly, "Philip Jihadski" repeats the asinine objection about whether the destination country to where we would deport Muslims "refused to take moslems". As I said here above, more than once, who gives a flying fuck whether a Muslim nation refuses. We airlift the Muslims over their land and drop them en masse (see my first comment to Richard James above), and we won't even ask permission. Call it "Operation FU"."
________________________________________________


You never answered the most pertinent question: how do you tell who is a moslem? Tell us again how that is going to happen ? will you round them up according to ‘traditional garb’ ? or possibly, ‘brown skin’? What if they lie? How do you know who the moslems are? What about the nominal moslems, who fear for their lives and are only seeking a way out of the mess? You're going to round up all 'brown-skinned', 'middle-eastern' looking people you see and drop them somewhere else?

Philip Jihadski and Angemon have already, on many occasions inquired as to, exactly, how you intend to go about his dream of Total Deportation. You never answered, nor have you ever given any, pragmatic instructions as to how to carry it out. Now here is the evil in what you desire:

In NAZI Germany, literally thousands of Jews (practicing, nominal, non-practicing ? whatever) were deported to places outside of Germany (mainly, Poland, at first), in an effort to create a JewFree Germany.

Dr. Jackass seeks to create a Muslim Free United states, by deporting them all. Herein lies the rub: many, many of those “Jews” were not Jews, AT ALL! They were “ratted out” by neighbors who had personal beefs, or those who seek favor with the NAZIs by telling lies (much as Voegy does on these page) and condemning people to death.

What happens, for example, if we deport a, say, 12 year-old girl (nominally moslem, but trying to escape the clutches of her famiy and Islam) by force, according to Dr. Voegy’s wild-eyed NAZIesque scheme?

Well, let me tell you what happens ? Donkey Boy then has the blood of that innocent girl on HIS hands!

Yes, he is no better than a NAZI, in this regard. He sees a moslem in every brown-skinned person, in every Middle Eastern-looking individual, etc.

His little scheme is incredibly dangerous and fraught with possibility of mistake.

Now, to conclude, I absolutely advocate the deportation of all moslems who can legally be deported. Other than that, I refuse to have Hitleresque blood on my hands.

Hesperado said...

The above "Anonymous" seems to be a different person from Philip Jihadski, in writing style and intelligence (i.e., he has some at least, unlike Philip Jihadski). I've been remiss in checking my spam folder on my blog, so I just discovered it there. The comment is brimming with the usual dim questions that seem to be triggered almost as involuntary reflexes by those demurrers of total deportation. I've addressed every last one of the points many times before, though this Anonymous may not know (though I wouldn't put it past the Jihad Watchers to misconstrue even text they read 15 minutes ago, and Anonymous evidently is a Jihad Watch regular, so it's unlikely he never saw me address these points many times before).

At any rate, I will address them sometime soon -- for the umpteenth time.

For now, I'd just say that the "most pertinent point" this Anonymous says has been brought up by PJ and Angemon is the kind of point that anyone with half a brain could answer if they just calmed down, stopped being an obtusely contrarian opponent of Hesperado, and thought about it for a few minutes. They wouldn't have to agree with Hesperado, but surely they could come up with an answer to that "pertinent point". This isn't rocket science; and I'm not some Svengali. A reasonable discussion (much less a rational debate) involves both sides being able and willing, as a thought experiment, to think like their opponent -- the better (if they can) to oppose his arguments. Such reason seems to elude the Rabbit Packers.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Voegy, the Jackass:


" I've addressed every last one of the points many times before, though this Anonymous may not know (though I wouldn't put it past the Jihad Watchers to misconstrue even text they read 15 minutes ago, and Anonymous evidently is a Jihad Watch regular, so it's unlikely he never saw me address these points many times before). "

_______________________________________________________________________________

Liar. You never addressed the questions above, nor the variations in it that they have posed over the years – and by this (your own “logic”), you actually accomplishe the assassination of your wet dream. It goes something like this (for the hundredth time!):

1.) Moslems are dangerous.

2.) We can’t tell the dangerous ones from the benign ones, so to be prudent…

3.) We must suspect all Moslems. And since we must suspect ALL of them, the only, truly effective solution is to deport all of them.
___________________________________________________________________

The problem lies in #2 and #3. If we are to deport all of them, then naturally, we have to identify them – ALL of them, even the ones you allude to – those 9-11 hijackers dressed in suits. But of course, this is no solution at all, for islam comes in all flavors.

Ack! I tire of having to explain all of this. You have never addressed this or the Dar Islam Deportation question concerning American citizens who are Moslem.




"For now, I'd just say that the "most pertinent point" this Anonymous says has been brought up by PJ and Angemon is the kind of point that anyone with half a brain could answer if they just calmed down, stopped being an obtusely contrarian opponent of Hesperado, and thought about it for a few minutes. They wouldn't have to agree with Hesperado, but surely they could come up with an answer to that "pertinent point". This isn't rocket science; and I'm not some Svengali. A reasonable discussion (much less a rational debate) involves both sides being able and willing, as a thought experiment, to think like their opponent -- the better (if they can) to oppose his arguments. Such reason seems to elude the Rabbit Packers."

________________________________________________________________________________



But, of course, Dr. Baby Donkey hasn’t addressed the refutation of his grand theory, or stopped to think for a few minutes about what the "other side" is thinking and how to best explain his message to them. He’s had ample opportunity, but instead of acknowledging his great mistake, he just plows right on ahead. If he had any substance to apply in argumentation, he would offer some counter-argument, or at least explain things in a way the "other side" would understand, instead of repeating variations of 'I already answered that' or 'they'd see it if they stop to think for a bit' or 'they're stupid' over and over and over and over and over.

________________________________________________________________________________


This is why I call him "Donkey" - because he keeps braying on and on and on and on and on. Hear that, Donkey? You’re a pompous, self-important asshole who thinks he can read others’ minds and treat them like expendable crap, and you deserve all the abuse you got. The abuse you subjected poor little Champ to? Mark my words: you're going to burn in hell for it.

Hesperado said...

"The problem lies in #2 and #3. If we are to deport all of them, then naturally, we have to identify them – ALL of them, even the ones you allude to – those 9-11 hijackers dressed in suits. But of course, this is no solution at all, for islam comes in all flavors."

Yes, if you can't do something perfectly, don't do it at all -- even if your life depends on trying. Stellar logic.

"You have never addressed this or the Dar Islam Deportation question concerning American citizens who are Moslem."

Secondly, "Philip Jihadski" repeats the asinine objection about whether the destination country to where we would deport Muslims "refused to take moslems". As I said here above, more than once, who gives a flying fuck whether a Muslim nation refuses [to receive the Muslims we eject]. We airlift the Muslims over their land and drop them en masse (see my first comment to Richard James above), and we won't even ask permission. Call it "Operation FU".

Yeah, I never addressed it.

Hesperado said...

But, of course, Dr. Baby Donkey hasn’t addressed the refutation of his grand theory, or stopped to think for a few minutes about what the "other side" is thinking and how to best explain his message to them. He’s had ample opportunity, but instead of acknowledging his great mistake, he just plows right on ahead. If he had any substance to apply in argumentation, he would offer some counter-argument, or at least explain things in a way the "other side" would understand, instead of repeating variations of 'I already answered that' or 'they'd see it if they stop to think for a bit' or 'they're stupid' over and over and over and over and over.

Keep repeating that often enough, and maybe it will become a fact. As I've said many times before in various Jihad Watch comments over the years, when Philip Jihadski says this (and/or implies it), I reasonably assume it's because he's dense; but when Angemon says it (and/or implies it), I reasonable assume it's not because he's as stupid as Philip Jihadski, but because he's a sophist.

Also, nota bene: My "# 2 and 3" crucially depends on how one defines the danger of Mohammedans and their Mohammedanism. I've defined it many times over the years. The Counter-Jihad Softies haven't (though they expend a lot of energy flailing around it). One reasonably assumes whatever their definition is, it's not as much of a threat to the West as I perceive it to be. That's one way out of a problem: define it as more manageable by ordinary means than it actually is. (This, of course, is no solution; only a way to feel better about oneself for avoiding "bigotry" and "racism" and "crypto-Nazi tendencies" while simultaneously patting oneself on the back for being oh-so tough and no-nonsense about the problem of Islam, unlike those greasy politically correct multi-culturalists...)

Hesperado said...

"You have never addressed this or the Dar Islam Deportation question concerning American citizens who are Moslem."

I have addressed this many times. When a person joins Islam, we should reasonably conclude that they have ipso facto forfeited their citizenship in any non-Islamic polity (and when a person is born a Muslim and remains a Muslim, they are in a state of anti-citizenship in any non-Islamic polity; no matter how much they may smile and pretend they assimilate, and no matter how stupid the West is in gladly conferring citizenship upon them). If Anonymous/Philip Jihadski (not to mention Angemon and Wellington, et al.) doesn't know why one would reasonably conclude this, he hasn't been studying Islam enough.

I have argued this many times. Philip Jihadski is either lying or too dumb to know it. One reasonably concludes the latter.

Hesperado said...

On an indirectly related note, a recent comments thread attached to a report about how an Aussie man defended his wife on a plane from 8 Muslims has ballooned into over 250 comments.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/australia-eight-muslims-attack-woman-her-husband-fights-them-off#comments

It's a dismaying spectacle of incoherent flailing around the main problem of Islam (and Muslims) from all concerned. (One JW regular, "Undaunted" is a particularly exquisite example of the tough-on-the-outside Counter-Jihadist who evidently hasn't thought through the problem of all Muslims and their blueprint for escalating subversion-cum-conquest. If he has thought it through, I've never seen him indicate it in any of the hundreds of comments I've read of his over the years. Another commenter, a seeming newbie "byzantium1683" is singularly annoying and has OCD tendencies like two other JW regulars, Angemon and Archimedes; he also believes we should handle the problem of Muslims in the West through Conversation with Muslims, and it was then no surprise to see him avow that he is a Leftist. A good part of the quantity of comments there is a strangely obsessive wrestling match between this Leftist character and the brainless cheerleader "Champ", the two of them tussling back and forth seemingly hundreds of times -- I hit the "pagedown" button like 79 times to get past just one of their many têtes-à-tête on that ballooning thread...)

Anonymous said...

Dr. Whiny Donkey:

"Yes, if you can't do something perfectly, don't do it at all -- even if your life depends on trying. Stellar logic."
__________________________________________________________________________________


Do what, Donkey? "Total Deportation"? Philip Jihadski and Angemon have, on many occasions inquired as to, exactly, how you intend to go about that. You never answered, nor have you ever given any, pragmatic instructions as to how to carry it out. For the thousandth time: how do you plan on telling who is a moslem and who isn't? There's no "do something perfectly" or "imperfectly" when you can't tell who's a moslem.

More from Dr. Lying Jackass:

"Yeah, I never addressed it. "

["it" being the question concerning American citizens who are Moslem.]
___________________________________________________________________________________

Again - and for the hundredth time: what existing laws would let you take an American moslem convert and drop them somewhere? Remember, according to you "we don't need to change any laws" so they must already be in place.



More from Dr. Baby Donkey:

"Keep repeating that often enough, and maybe it will become a fact. As I've said many times before in various Jihad Watch comments over the years, when Philip Jihadski says this (and/or implies it), I reasonably assume it's because he's dense; but when Angemon says it (and/or implies it), I reasonable assume it's not because he's as stupid as Philip Jihadski, but because he's a sophist."
___________________________________________________________________________________


No, Donkey Boy, that's what you do - keep repeating that you answered questions over and over when you haven't. If you had any substance to apply in argumentation, you would offer some counter-argument, or at least explain things in a way the "other side" would understand, instead of repeating variations of 'I already answered that' or 'they'd see it if they stop to think for a bit' or 'they're stupid' over and over and over and over and over.

Hesperado said...

Hey PJ, your old nemesis "Peggy" is commenting on Jihad Watch. Why don't you go bully her (and Ernie) like you did before -- so badly that your comments had to be scrubbed by "Marc".

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/1000-muslims-screaming-allahu-akbar-set-fire-to-germanys-oldest-church-on-new-years-eve#comments

Anonymous said...

STOP DELETING MY COMMENTS YOU CENSORING NARCISSISTIC JACKASS.

I'm going to keep reposting and reposting until you get tired, ass.

More from Dr. Donkey Ass:

"My "# 2 and 3" crucially depends on how one defines the danger of Mohammedans and their Mohammedanism."
___________________________________________________________________________________

Jackass: #2 and #3 are predicated in your ABILITY to IDENTIFY moslems - doesn't matter how "one defines the danger of Mohammedans and their Mohammedanism" if you can't fucking tell who is a moslem and who isn't. And you haven't given any pragmatic instructions on how to IDENTIFY who is a moslem. Will you round them up according to ‘traditional garb’ ? or possibly, ‘brown skin’? What if they lie? How do you know who the moslems are?


Now, Donkey Ass:

1.) Look at 50 people on the street in New York.

2.) Tell me who is a moslem.

3.) Tell me who is not a moslem.

4.) Tell me who is lying.

5.) Tell me who is not lying.

6.) Tell me who is dangerous.

7.) Tell me who is not dangerous.
______________________________________________________________________________

Now. When you can do all of the above, you will be God. The simple fact is that you cannot now, nor will you EVER be able to do these simple things.

Actually ? I think I’ve hit on something; you’ve got a God Complex. Added to your rampant Narcissism, that’s a dangerous combination.

Now, Jackass ? answer EXACTLY, how you are going to do those 7 things above?

You won’t, of course, primarily because you’re a donkey, and donkeys are known for being stubborn, but that does nothing, logically, to mitigate the simple fact that you cannot read minds, nor can you tell visually or otherwise, who is and who is not a moslem, or whether they are dangerous or not ? just as you cannot look at those 50 people and tell who and who is not a moslem, or Catholic or Jew ? and who and who is not dangerous.

So stop with your nonsense, Jackass ? you’re getting nowhere, and your repeated claims that you have "answered" or "addressed" these questions when you haven't prove how muddled your “thinking” is. You’re beginning to sound and write like Reza Aslan.


Finally:

"I have addressed this many times. When a person joins Islam, we should reasonably conclude that they have ipso facto forfeited their citizenship in any non-Islamic polity"
___________________________________________________________________________________

Stupid stupid stupid STUPID lying Donkey. Under what LAWS do you deport native Americans? Get one thing in your thick head, Bobby: we have this called the Constitution, which, in the case of moslems who are citizens of the USA, prevents us from “forcibly deporting” a moslem, simply because they are a moslem. Espousing this notion, which you have obviously done, and which ? YES ? shows that you ARE ignorant of our laws ? leads to a very slippery slope. The question begs, “Who’s next ? the Catholics, the Atheists, the Jews? What you are espousing, as I said very clearly, is the beginnings of a NAZIesque police state, where people (read: 12 year-old nominally moslem girls, who are seeking a way to get out of Islam and their honor-killing ways) are deported to their deaths, because we suddenly foregone all of our Constitutional protections. And yes ? you ARE willingly ignorant of this.


Now you can continue on this road of denial as long as you like, but I’m gonna’ call you on this every opportunity I have.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Donkey Ass:

"Hey PJ, your old nemesis "Peggy" is commenting on Jihad Watch. Why don't you go bully her (and Ernie) like you did before -- so badly that your comments had to be scrubbed by "Marc"."

___________________________________________________________________________________

Don't know who the fuck "Peggy" or "Ernie" are, jackass. Now: are you going to explain to your 17.5 readers how you plan to tell who the Moslems, or Catholics, or Jews, or Atheists are from 50 random people walking on the street in New York?

Hesperado said...

Don't know who the fuck "Peggy" or "Ernie" are, jackass.

I wouldn't doubt that Anonymous, aka "Philip Jihadski" (aka "Joe Blow", often referred to as "PJ") doesn't remember one of the many times he has careened off the Superhighway in a fit of road rage. He may well have blackouts after each one. This was just a small taste of a JW comments thread back in 2015:

Ernie says

May 20, 2015 at 4:29 am

Dear Peggy thank you for your comment here . I agree with you it’s gone way too far , and over an extended period now . This is persecution , and as I stated , there is no point to it . The threats mr. Jihadsky makes only make it worse . It’s even more disheartening to see mr. Jihadski trying to gether a mob to bully us . I don’t feel free anymore : resisting mr. Jihadski’s hate and agression and even thinking about it takes a lot of energy out of me . My energy-level is already compromised by my current health-situation . Yesterday I told mr. Jihadski I was not impressed by his bullying , by now I feel right out intimidated , hated for nothing , persecuted . I’m sick of it . To point out the pointlessness of all this to mr. Jihadski is futile . He just doesn’t respond to reason and continues his bullying/powertrip . Nobody ( untill now ) has confronted him (directly)yet , but myself and you , that this behaviour is not acceptable on this blog . Maybe this is the case because other people on this blog don’t want to be sucked into this nonsense out of fear for this bully , or because some people just don’t care . I feel very vulnerable at this moment , and I’m really tempted to quit . My health , wellbeing and safety have my priority . I have no energy left to battle all this nonsense ( mr. Jihadski’s hatefull attacks ) for I’m in another battle already , the battle for my health . I hope someone will intervene now , and/or that mr. Jihadski will come to his senses . I wish you all the good in the world , and may the Lord Our G-d bless and keep you Peggy . I hope to meet you again on this blog . You are a fine lady . Ernie


Many more bewildered comments by Peggy and Ernie on that thread; and, typically, the Rabbit Pack (Angemon, Mirren, gravenimage) do nothing to chastise their anger-management-challenged friend PJ -- and when I forcefully brought their derelection of decent obligation, Angemon responded with his typical bargain-basement sophistry, and Mirren responded with her typically insolently arrogant snit.

And here's the kicker: although many people are talking about the comments of Philip Jihadski/PJ on that thread, the reader can't find any comments actually written by him. They were all scrubbed by Marc, Spencer's tech genius.

I encourage my saner readers to peruse that thread.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/boston-marathon-jihad-murderers-mother-non-muslims-will-burn-in-flames-of-an-eternal-and-terrifying-fire-an-otherworldly-flame-inshaallah

Anonymous said...

The Braying Donkey Strikes Again (predictably), proving that his “replies” never really address the issues that are brought up in response to:

"I wouldn't doubt that Anonymous, aka "Philip Jihadski" (aka "Joe Blow", often referred to as "PJ") doesn't remember one of the many times he has careened off the Superhighway in a fit of road rage."
________________________________________________________________________________


You got me there, Donkey. I don't know what happened on a topic 2 years ago. You do, because you're obsessed with Philip Jihadski. And Mirren, Wellington, Undaunted, Angemon, GravenImage and the rest of the "Rabbit Pack". Don't try to deny it - you write post after post about them, raving like a maniac. Why are you not taking them to task in JihadWatch? Because they handed your ass to you. Many, many times. How may times Marc kicked you out like yesterday's trash only for you to return like a rotten cockroach and start your shenanigans again, Donkey Boy?

You love to dish it out with your gratuitous insults, hiding behind threads on which the objects of your derision aren’t commenting, because quite frankly – you're a coward and a cheap, dishonest person – yet you can’t take it. You need to get out of the kitchen if you desire to complain of the heat.

You have yet, over the span of YEARS now, been unable to answer various of their questions, and now, certain questions, offered as solid refutation to your insane, Naziesque fantasy of TotalDeportation. We all know what those questions are – you offers nothing in the way of answering, honestly, what the pragmatic demands of such a “process” would entail, how you would answer to charges of sedition, etc….no – you offer nothing, and why?

Because you can’t, and you know it.


Now, Donkey: are you going to explain to your 17.5 readers how you plan to tell who the Moslems, or Catholics, or Jews, or Atheists are from 50 random people walking on the street in New York? Or are you going to keep your 17.5 readers doubting your mental sanity with your obsession over Philip Jihadski, Mirren, Wellington, Undaunted, Angemon, GravenImage and the rest of the "Rabbit Pack"? One has to seriously doubt the sanity of an individual like you, who keeps coming back to JihadWatch, after having been banned 9 or 10 times, yet still showing his extreme hatred of certain posters there.

#JihadWatchWatch

Hesperado said...

The psychological dysfunction of the commenter "Anonymous" above is evident in many ways; not the least of which he apparently thinks he's going to get a comprehensive response to questions after he repeatedly, crudely and outrageously insults the person he's questioning (not to mention that he routinely ignores what responses I have given him, repeats questions I've already answered, claims that I'm "lying" about this and other things, indulges in logical fallacies of non sequiturs, red herrings, straw man, tu quoque, poisoning the well, projections; etc., ad nauseam). This might work in some seedy bar (though "work" to what end?); but in this context, it is a display of such derangement that only two explanations are reasonable: either "Anonymous" is actually deranged, or he is trolling. The tip of the iceberg of vast evidence of his past behavior on Jihad Watch comments (cf. the link I posted above about how he treated two nice, civil commenters on Jihad Watch comments), bashing people over the head repeatedly over months, years, indicates actual derangement. (Come to think of it, even if it is trolling, that by itself -- given the longevity of it -- would also indicate some psychological break with reality).

Anonymous said...

For the thousandth time after being questioned, Dr. Donkey refuses to give any pragmatic instructions on how to IDENTIFY who is a moslem. Will you round them up according to ‘traditional garb’ - or possibly, ‘brown skin’- What if they lie? How do you know who the moslems are?


You have proven, once again, that you are a stickler for form – but not substance, as you blithely trolls on in here, lie about people in JW you don't like in the form of a giant, narcissistic turd – then hi-tails it out at the first sign or semblance of a counter-argument to his pseudo-argument. You're a phony.


Yet again, you claim you're being attacked, rather than your “theory”. And you dislike being called a donkey, yet you feel just fine about claiming that I have an evident "psychological dysfunction", "routinely ignore responses", "indulge in logical fallacies of non sequiturs, red herrings, straw man, tu quoque, poisoning the well, projections; etc., ad nauseam", assert I am either "deranged" or "trolling", and that I have "some psychological break with reality".

God, I tell you – I think the man has lost his mind.

You are an illogical, hateful, paranoid entity that assumes much too much – then “crafts” those assumptions into a pseudo-argument, replete with multiple fallacies, imaginary mind-reading capabilities and out-an-out lying about what other people think, say, and do. Better start taking memory pills, Bob - you need to keep track of your lies:

"cf. the link I posted above about how he treated two nice, civil commenters on Jihad Watch comments"

And

"the reader can't find any comments actually written by him. They were all scrubbed by Marc, Spencer's tech genius."


Donkey - from the link he orders his readers to read:

"Since Phillip Jihadski’s outbursts have been airbrushed out, we cannot be certain of their content"
___________________________________________________________________________________

Anonymous said...

Of course, Voegelinian won’t ever answer my question about how he plans to IDENTIFY Moslems. Instead, he claims he is being attacked, when I call him a Jackass. But his behavior is perfectly analogous to that of a donkey; he only moves forward, refuses to step back, carries insanely large amounts of “baggage”, brays on and on with the same, illogical nonsense, and is impervious to counter-reasoning and lucid examples – all the while fancying himself a racehorse, when in actuality, he is a donkey, dressed up in 5 dollar words.

People who behave as he does are commonly referred to as malignant narcissists. Add a huge dollop of persecution-complex, paranoia and self-obsession and it all adds up to one, steaming pile of…

INSANITY.
___________________________________________________________________________________

What he’s trying to get us all to say is, of course, “Yes, Guru Voegy – I hate ALL Moslems! Yes! All of them, and I want you to tell me how to round them all up and deport them! Never mind that I just can’t figure out how to do that without being thrown in jail, myself – but you MUST be correct, because you say so. So YES! I hate them all – they’re ALL guilty, and if we really had your superior solution working for us, we would have lined them all up and shot them, summarily…even the ones who aren’t brown! Sieg Heil, Dr. Voegy, the Magical Mind Reading Guru of the Counterjihad.

Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!”

MukeNecca said...

@ Anonymous

"Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!”

Go Fuck Yourself.

MukeNecca said...

@anonymous

"Will you round them up according to ‘traditional garb’ - or possibly, ‘brown skin’- What if they lie? How do you know who the moslems are?"

You can never identify all moslems, as you can never identify, for example, all art forgeries, but it’s rather easy to identify at least 95% of them.
Besides, in most cases moslems would identify themselves directly (when asked), or indirectly (by attending mosques, cultural centers, Ramadan fasting, attacking non-moslems, sexually molesting Christian women, children, desecrating churches, demanding that the non-moslems integrate to Sharia and all the rest of their antics…)

Yes, there are (rather few) solidly confirmed Christians arriving from moslem world. Such averagely intelligent Christian would, in case of doubt, spot a moslem without much problem - not by garb and skin colour, but by a quick visit to his home and a cursory conversation. I lived in the Middle East and India and after a very short time I almost never had problem distinguishing between a Moslem and Hindu, Buddhist and Christian. Again, not by garb or skin color, dummkopf...
A culture leaves a distinct mark on person’s face. If, after living in Delhi for a few months, you look in the eye of a local and can’t say if he is Moslem or Hindu, you are a mule.

Of course, there will be always some mistakes made. You can never eliminate the probability of a “friendly fire” when in war. And we are in war with Islam and therefore Moslems. Or rather, we’d better be as soon as possible because they've been in war with us for long time now.

Hesperado said...

Thanks Muke for a breath of common sense. You also bring up the efficacy of the tactic of the West employing Middle Eastern, African, and Asian Christians (and atheists, and for India, also Hindus) who emigrated from various Muslim lands, in order to help us with the identification process of Muslims. In this regard, we should be reasonably cautious about two factors: 1) the relative residues of dhimmitude in such Christians (etc) predisposing them to softness about Islam and even conflicting stockholm-syndrome loyalties; and 2) the possibility of Muslims posing as Christians or atheists.

MukeNecca said...

Hesp,
I wouldn’t worry too much about availability of Middle Eastern Christians which could be trusted with the job of identification. Not only because the data about who is and who isn’t Moslem among vast majority of immigrants exists from their first day here, but because in the initial stage of the de-islamification the input of these Christians would not be necessary. The bulk of moslems at least 85% are painfully conspicuous and so highly concentrated both in the European countries and the US that one would need to make an effort to miss them. It is important to understand that the success of the de-islamisation of the West doesn’t depend on an instantaneous removal of all moslems. The first phase of the De-Islamization offensive would be removing of the easily identified and localized in limited areas moslems. Or the vast majority of them. If the West succeeds in pulling off Phase One then removing the remaining small minority, or Phase 2, would be carried out in a much different, calmer, environment involving different strategy and where the element of speed of action would not be critical as in Phase One. As for the dhimmitude and Stockholm-syndrome loyalties you mention above they manifest themselves only in the environment of fear. But if the Phase One results in drastic reduction of the number of Moslems while the remnants are hunted down and in hiding their ability to intimidate anybody especially persons they once terrorized wouldn't be there.
So again, instead of getting dragged into endless discussion of “technical details” belonging to still very hypothetical Phase Two, lets concentrate on how to bring about the Phase One. Or pre-PhaseOne phase.

Anonymous said...

Imitation Donkey:

"You can never identify all moslems, as you can never identify, for example, all art forgeries, but it’s rather easy to identify at least 95% of them.
Besides, in most cases moslems would identify themselves directly (when asked)"
______________________________________________________________________________

"You there, with the brown skin. Are you a Moslem? If so, we are going to arrest you and parachute you over Sudan without a parachute"

Now go on - tell us how you're going to "easily" identy at least 95% of Moslems in the US once they know identifying as a Moslem means getting arrested and "deported" and shave beards and deny ever being a Moslem or claim they converted out of Islam.

Hesperado said...

Muke,

Much of what you say seems based on reasonable inferences; however, it seems you are considering this process in the abstract, and have not taken into account how likely messy and incremental it would be, such that what I call the “Muslim Relocation Initiative” (it sounds nicer than “Total Deportation”) would not so much develop neatly in logical stages, as you imply, but would more likely devolve in fits and starts over years if not decades, as people try to steer it back onto the road, so to speak.

Given this, there would be many problems one could reasonably assume. One of them is that the Western process of getting there will not be a nice neat process, but will be occasioned by much internal arguments, debates, disagreements, even vitriol, etc., not to mention escalating, diverse violence from Muslims. Thus, one of the many problems with the messiness is that the Muslims inside the West (who, it is reasonable to assume, will be in significantly greater numbers in various Western countries by that time than they already are now) will a) know and/or infer what’s in store for them and b) will be, in their fanaticism and violent responses, exacerbated by our development of increasingly targeting Muslims for hostile policies of surveillance, searches, seizures, arrests.

It is not impossible that the West could arrive at de-Islamization procedures in a relatively speedy and orderly way; but it is highly unlikely. The main reason for the unlikeliness is the incoherent state of the Western mind with regard to rationally assessing the actual nature of the problem of Islam -- which is joined at the hip with the problem of all Muslims. Without that latter problem, the former problem will always be about something unrealistic, if not fantasy-based. This is why the Counter-Jihad continues to be faulty – because it has psychological blocks about making the logical extrapolation from the one problem to the second problem.

And if the Counter-Jihad can’t get over this mental/emotional block, it will never be able to adequately do its primary job – waking up the rest of the West (whose vast majority of people suffer from far worse and deeper mental/emotional blocks) to an adequate assessment of the actual nature of the problem of Islam (again, joined at the hip to the problem of all Muslims).

“As for the dhimmitude and Stockholm-syndrome loyalties you mention above they manifest themselves only in the environment of fear.”

For an indeterminate number of such non-Muslims from Muslim lands, I don’t think it’s that superficial. It’s often more deeply ingrained, culturally. One sees, for example, quite a few Middle Eastern Christians who have absorbed the anti-semitism of Islam, perhaps also its misogyny.

“So again, instead of getting dragged into endless discussion of “technical details” belonging to still very hypothetical Phase Two, lets concentrate on how to bring about the Phase One. Or pre-PhaseOne phase.”

I agree. In my estimation, it should involve pushing the logic to its accurate conclusion, instead of pussyfooting around short of that in an incoherent mixture of actually believing in the soft approach (a starry-eyed sentimentality about innumerable minions of Muslims who must be “lax” or “ignorant of their own Islam” or “wanting to escape but too afraid”) coupled with a conviction that we must timidly walk on eggshells about the full catastrophe of the problem, lest we scare our Western audience away. As long as our communications in this war of ideas phase are incoherent and disorganized, we will glacially progress in painfully slow and piece-meal increments, but we will be forever pushing away the truth of the logical conclusion that is at the end of all this incoherent, disorganized, emotionally wrought and frustrated Education about the Full Horror of Islam.

MukeNecca said...

@Anonymous,

Please read again my reply where I'm suggesting you should go fuck yourself. No, I didn't suggest it out of concern for your sex life. It was my way of telling an obnoxious and stupid boor I'm not interested in reading his ranting. I hope that clarifies the matter.

MukeNecca said...

@Hesperado,
You wrote a very interesting and thought provoking reply. Not being a native English speaker I need time to fully digest it so I'm sure I fully understand I can follow your reasoning. Also, I'm traveling right now so writing and sending from my IPad is very uncomfortable. I'll write a reply once I'm at my destination. Regards.

Anonymous said...

Imitation Donkey:

"It was my way of telling an obnoxious and stupid boor I'm not interested in reading his ranting. I hope that clarifies the matter. "
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Then don't read it, cretin - and don't reply to me and pretend you didn't. The title of Imitation Donkey suits you perfectly - both of you, being asses, make asinine claims ("Deport All Moslems" - "It's Easy To Identify 95% of Moslems") and scream and kick like little children when someone questions you on it.

MukeNecca said...

LOL!

It’s rather comical to be called “imitation donkey” by an authentic rabid pig.

Now, go fuck yourself, delirious fruitcake.

Well, thinking of it, you’re fucking yourself incessantly in each of your imbecilic “comments”. You're just too dumb to realize it.

Hesperado said...

Muke, you haven't seen nothing -- you should have seen him (under other aliases, most commonly "Philip Jihadski") lashing out at various people in Jihad Watch comments over the years. Some of his rants were so bad, apparently verging into death threats and publishing private information (or threatening to), that the head tech person at Jihad Watch had to scrub whole comments threads clean of his comments.

Interestingly, over the years he would divulge the personal detail about himself that he travels widely to various Muslim countries to work -- Libya, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Allah knows where else. In Saudi Arabi, he supposedly taught the sons of one of the princes. Of course, much of this could be camelshit; on the other hand, I have speculated that it may explain his soft spots for Muslims.

MukeNecca said...

Hesp,

Now it all makes sense! I knew I’ve read this guy before. Of course, I remember Philip Jihadski (what a kooky avatar) from the time I used to read Jihad Watch. Yes, it’s definitely him: crude, rude and raving insanely. I do lurk in JihadWatch also now, but mostly only to read Robert Spencer and seldom the comments, so I wasn’t aware he is still doing his crackpot act.
Yep, I remember his stories about traveling extensively in the ME and doing all kind of jobs for all kind of people and institutions. I never believed a word of that camelshit.

Anyway, I don’t think you should waste your time debating him as the guy is definitely gaga (gagaguy?). There is no chance he is able to turn off his derangement for the sake of debate. He will always respond with fury to being defied and shown wrong. I’ll try to respond to your other post as soon as I’m home.

Hesperado said...

Thanks Muke. I don't really debate PJ or argue against him or even discuss the issue with him; for the most part, I just make peripheral snide comments about him, expecting this will enrage him all the more.

(As I've already told him in the comments of a more recent article, I don't debate people who do three things: 1) regularly insult me; 2) buttonhole me; and 3) routinely indulge in logical fallacies. Now, if someone did just one of these things but not the other two, I might consider getting involved in a long discussion or even debate with them. But PJ can't help himself; unfailingly, he does all three.)

Anonymous said...

Imitation DOnkey:

"It’s rather comical to be called “imitation donkey” by an authentic rabid pig."
_________________________________________________________________________________


The title of Imitation Donkey suits you perfectly - both of you, being asses, make asinine claims ("Deport All Moslems" - "It's Easy To Identify 95% of Moslems") and scream and kick like little children when someone questions you on it.

Now, Imitation Donkey: tell us how you're going to "easily" identy at least 95% of Moslems in the US once they know identifying as a Moslem means getting arrested and "deported" and shave beards and deny ever being a Moslem or claim they converted out of Islam.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Donkey Ass:

" I don't really debate PJ or argue against him or even discuss the issue with him; for the most part, I just make peripheral snide comments about him, expecting this will enrage him all the more."

___________________________________________________________________________________

The Ass doesn't discuss "the issue" because The Ass gets his ass handed to him every time he tries. Now, Donkey Ass:

1.) Look at 50 people on the street in New York.

2.) Tell me who is a moslem.

3.) Tell me who is not a moslem.

4.) Tell me who is lying.

5.) Tell me who is not lying.

6.) Tell me who is dangerous.

7.) Tell me who is not dangerous.


Now, Jackass, answer EXACTLY, how you are going to do those 7 things above?

MukeNecca said...


”For…such non-Muslims from Muslim lands, I don’t think it’s that superficial. It’s often more deeply ingrained, culturally. One sees, for example, quite a few Middle Eastern Christians who have absorbed the anti-semitism of Islam, perhaps also its misogyny.

Quite possibly you are right about the anti-Semitism, but I don’t think these Christians, however anti-Semitic they may be, would like moslems rule over Christian country (and themselves) so they may finally “get at those Jews”. In any case there is an increasing number of Israeli Christian Arabs serving in the IDF, rather than joining Hamas and PLO, and this is quite indicative of with whom ME Christians’ ultimate solidarity would rest.

MukeNecca said...

Hesp,

I notice the “Jihadski” gaga-guy has deposited a new lump of his old idiocy at the doormat of the blog. This time let’s not step in it. D’accord?

I’ve never believed that removing of Moslems from the West could be a tidily designed and then neatly executed action. I must have expressed myself uncarefully since you go that impression. This is not to say that one can not, or should not conceive of a strategy, or a number of strategies before the action, and more importantly, to remember to be prepared to abandon it when necessary and adapt some other approach. This is what every good general knows before entering a war: have a good strategy and know when to dump it.

Another thing is that it is much too premature to focus and worry about the logistic involved in an action when the possibility of it is not certain. and not because such trivialities as distinguishing between moslem and non-moslem. America in the past rounded up both its Japanese and German citizens without difficulty. Nobody argues that removing of the illegal immigrants is impossible because there is no way to distinguish between the illegal and legal. Nobody, except our gaga-guy Jihadski would dream of stopping 50 persons in Manhattan street asking them “are you legally here?, (or “are you a moslem”, or are you a child molester? or are you a drug pusher?) Of course not. Incidentally rounding up moslems would be much simpler than rounding up illegals – you start with a place like Dearborn and corral every living soul. If some of them, or all of them for that matter, claims Catholicism, or Buddhism, or Judaism, or Nudism you compare that with his immigration record and if fits, fine. If it doesn’t - then let him prove it. After all there is about 0.01% chance that might be the case.

"Thus, one of the many problems with the messiness is that the Muslims inside the West will a) know and/or infer what’s in store for them and b) will be, in their fanaticism and violent responses, exacerbated by our development of increasingly targeting Muslims for hostile policies of surveillance, searches, seizures, arrests."

I’m not being cynical, but, after all the “fanaticism and violent responses” would make their identification easier – they would identify themselves much clearer than we could. But we need to want to go “all the way” and indicate it by “increasingly targeting Muslims for hostile policies of surveillance, searches, seizures, arrests.”
But before such scenarios are minimally realistic a Western democratic society must reach consensus on the necessity of moslem removal. And before that consensus we need a commonly shared understanding and realisation that Islams presence in the West and unstoppable growth must bring about most fundamental changes to our way of living. It will be the end of our freedom or what WE understand by freedom - the basic principle of our civilization. And then each of us need to ask himself the question “do I care to die and kill to keep alive the world my ancestors died and killed for my sake? “ We will never have a chance to live life we once took for granted if the answer is anything but “yes”.

MukeNecca said...

continued from above:

Unfortunately, we are in deep lethargy. We are no longer Christians and too many of us don’t know it, or care to know it. We, in Europe at least, don’t even make babies anymore. So yes, anti-Jihad’s call is very important and I have endless admiration for people Like R. Spencer, D. Greenfield, P. Geller for their commitment, intelligence and courage. But there is realistic possibility that their effort may be in vain - and not because people don’t understand the message, but because too many simply don’t care. We care about economy, health, climate change, pollution, the future of our planet and even our children - if we happen to have them. But very few are concerned with future of our civilization.
So the problem to my mind is not so much “psychological blocks about making the logical extrapolations” but rather moral, or spiritual, blocks. As long as these blocks are not removed one can demonstrate the logics of extrapolations all day.
The problem is not how to make people to listen and extrapolate, but how to make them care.

”For…such non-Muslims from Muslim lands, I don’t think it’s that superficial. It’s often more deeply ingrained, culturally. One sees, for example, quite a few Middle Eastern Christians who have absorbed the anti-semitism of Islam, perhaps also its misogyny.

Quite possibly you are right about the anti-Semitism, but I don’t think these Christians, however anti-Semitic they may be, would like moslems rule over Christian country (and themselves) so they may finally “get at those Jews”. In any case there is an increasing number of Israeli Christian Arabs serving in the IDF, rather than joining Hamas and PLO, and this is quite indicative of with whom ME Christians’ ultimate solidarity would rest.

And could you please explain this:
”The main reason for the unlikeliness is the incoherent state of the Western mind with regard to rationally assessing the actual nature of the problem of Islam -- which is joined at the hip with the problem of all Muslims. Without that latter problem, the former problem will always be about something unrealistic, if not fantasy-based. This is why the Counter-Jihad continues to be faulty – because it has psychological blocks about making the logical extrapolation from the one problem to the second problem.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “unlikeliness”. Unlikelines of what?
Also please explain what you mean by: “…the actual nature of the problem of Islam -- which is joined at the hip with the problem of all Muslims”. In what way are they different and why the difference should matter to us?

Sorry for this messy post, but ther is a limit on the numcber of characters, so I had to break the text into three segments and I see I didn't do a very good job.

Hesperado said...

Thanks Muke for your detailed thoughts & responses. Allow me to answer you in bits, with different specific responses.

First one for now:

"Also please explain what you mean by: “…the actual nature of the problem of Islam -- which is joined at the hip with the problem of all Muslims”. In what way are they different and why the difference should matter to us? "

Well, they are different on a basic level -- one is the set of ideas (texts, religious symbolisms, etc.), the other is the followers who follow or submit to those ideas, and in various ways put them in practice.

My point was not about my perception, but the perception of the politically correct multiculturalists, and their cousins in the Counter-Jihad (the "Softies"). People who are on a progressive path of learning more and more about the problem of Islam tend to erect this wall between Islam and Muslims: "Sure, Islam is bad, but I don't hate Muslims" or "Yes Islam is extremist, but most Muslims aren't that way" etc.

Hesperado said...

Muke -- Another bit of a response, for now:

”The main reason for the unlikeliness is the incoherent state of the Western mind with regard to rationally assessing the actual nature of the problem of Islam -- which is joined at the hip with the problem of all Muslims. Without that latter problem, the former problem will always be about something unrealistic, if not fantasy-based. This is why the Counter-Jihad continues to be faulty – because it has psychological blocks about making the logical extrapolation from the one problem to the second problem. ”

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “unlikeliness”. Unlikelines of what?

_______________________________________________

I meant the unlikeliness of the West waking up in time to save itself. I think it's unlikely because of the state of semi-sleep throughout the West -- even, to a great extent (though in somewhat different ways) in the Counter-Jihad also. The semi-sleep characterized by all those things I described -- the incoherence, the denial, the anxiety about being "bigoted", etc.

Hesperado said...

Muke, continuing my responses:

I’ve never believed that removing of Moslems from the West could be a tidily designed and then neatly executed action. I must have expressed myself uncarefully since you go that impression. This is not to say that one can not, or should not conceive of a strategy, or a number of strategies before the action, and more importantly, to remember to be prepared to abandon it when necessary and adapt some other approach. This is what every good general knows before entering a war: have a good strategy and know when to dump it.

I agree, theoretically; however, still what I was referring to was the fact that the evolution of the West itself toward doing something, anything, about the danger of Islam is not going to proceed in a smooth way, but will be beset by internal denial, in many degrees and forms, that there is a danger. This denial takes many forms: either a complete denial (meanwhile acknowledging that a "Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Twisting Islam" are a danger); or an awareness that Islam is part of the problem, but still denying that Islam as a whole is the main source, inspiration and guidance of the danger to us. So, if a civilization like the West is moving toward an increasingly Islam-aware geopolitics and "conceiving a strategy" or a number of strategies, it will be doing so often in inept and inadequate ways; meanwhile continuing to allow millions of Muslims inside the West to infiltrate our institutions.

Hesperado said...

Muke,

Quoting me:

"Thus, one of the many problems with the messiness is that the Muslims inside the West will a) know and/or infer what’s in store for them and b) will be, in their fanaticism and violent responses, exacerbated by our development of increasingly targeting Muslims for hostile policies of surveillance, searches, seizures, arrests."

You wrote:

I’m not being cynical, but, after all the “fanaticism and violent responses” would make their identification easier – they would identify themselves much clearer than we could.

My point is that, since the process on our side will be messy -- which includes the likelihood that our society and policies will be compromised by degrees of denial and factions of disagreement about what to do and how far to go -- there will continue to be large numbers of Muslims not only inside the West, but in key institutions -- thus capable of resorting to their Islamic "Plan B" -- terror plots that could kill millions of Westerners in various places (and injuring millions more) in various chemical, biological, and other attacks.

At that point, we are talking about a general devolution of our societies in the West, increasingly becoming killing fields, zones of civil unrest, and outright battlefields. It's possible that even at that horrible point, the West could turn it around and save itself. But surely, such an eventuality does not easily conduce to optimism.

But we need to want to go “all the way” and indicate it by “increasingly targeting Muslims for hostile policies of surveillance, searches, seizures, arrests.”
But before such scenarios are minimally realistic a Western democratic society must reach consensus on the necessity of moslem removal. And before that consensus we need a commonly shared understanding and realisation that Islams presence in the West and unstoppable growth must bring about most fundamental changes to our way of living. It will be the end of our freedom or what WE understand by freedom - the basic principle of our civilization.


I don't see the threat of Muslims as merely an "end to freedom" but primarily as an escalation of mass murder inside the West by Muslims, and the increasing disorder and breakdown of society that will entail. The end to freedom would come after that. We need to prevent the former; if we don't know what we're preventing, it will be less likely we will be able to prevent it.

Anonymous said...

Imitation Donkey:

"Nobody, except our gaga-guy Jihadski would dream of stopping 50 persons in Manhattan street asking them “are you legally here?, (or “are you a moslem”, or are you a child molester? or are you a drug pusher?)"
____________________________________________________________________________________


Now listen up, punk. I have never said anything about stopping anyone on the street or asking them anything, and I defy you to find those words. Now come up with the citation or cut the crap. Got it? And you wonder why I call you an Imitation Donkey?! This is precisely why - you plow on through, braying the same kind of sophism taught by the Donkey Ass.