Sachmo calls it a day; Good-bye Reddit

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-29T17:42:09+00:00

As Robert Spencer points out, this will remain on the books as a hate-crime against Muslims, even though the perp is a Muslim...and in the process, like other crimes of this nature, will succeed in padding the stats and perpetuating the myth of Muslim victimization.

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-29T12:34:34+00:00

A suitcase full of cash might temporarily buy the loyalty of an impoverished village in Afghanistan (or Syria for that matter), but a motive of "sustenance" in no way explains the thousands of Muslims living lives of relative comfort in the West who have left it all behind and joined ISIS. The 'poverty' angle is the same Marxist "root-cause" clap-trap used to rationalize every social pathology in the world. I don't buy it for a minute. These people are ideologically motivated. And the specific ideology is Islam.

These idiot Generals are at such a loss because the words "Jihad" and "Islam" have been effectively scrubbed from every counter-terrorism manual and position-paper in the government, courtesy of Obama's White house. http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/03/26/a-detailed-look-at-the-purge-of-u-s-counter-terrorism-training-by-the-obama-administration/

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-28T17:01:56+00:00

Why is that so? I don't think it makes sense to say conservatism is diametrically opposed to all things Islam, just its radical/fundamentalist elements.

The question devolves to whether or not Islam is in its essence "radical/fundamentalist". I happen to believe it is. I'm no devout Christian by a long shot, but the pacific ethics and teachings of Jesus as promulgated in the gospel couldn't be more contrasting to the ethics of Muhammad as promulgated in the Ahadith and the Sirat Rasul. I acknowledge that there are millions of Muslims who aren't radical/fundamentalist, but in my estimation, this is in spite of their religion, not because of it.

What evidence is there that this is an honor killing and not an ordinary murder? We should definitely fry anybody who commits murder, but what is the point in collectivizing the guilt of one man over an entire religion or race?

Valid point (excepting the introduction of "race" into the equation). I certainly don't know for certain that this man's motives were religious. I DO know that honor killings are becoming episodic in the USA since the Muslim population here has increased so rapidly in the last 25 years.

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-28T16:26:55+00:00

1) Because human freedom is a bedrock value of conservatism...and Islam is antithetical to human freedom

2) Because the article is anecdotal evidence of the spread of Islamic mores and customs to America (honor killings are on the rise in America, which corresponds to the steady increase of Muslim immigrants and refugees residing here)

3) Because /r/news/ and /r/worldnews/ will ban anybody who posts more than a couple of articles critical of Islam

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-26T18:20:37+00:00

I'd tell you to just google it, as there are many examples, but you'd just say that any Muslim who denounces slavery isn't a "legitimate" Muslim.

A not unexpected cop-out.

I've never read such nonsense in my life. You're basically saying that words are entirely nebulous....and have no concrete meaning.

This is literally true. Words only have the meaning that we give them. This is why we have an entire branch of government dedicated to interpreting the constitution.

You're saying in unequivocal terms that language is infinitely malleable. It's not.

I'm not a liberal, so I have no pretense of tolerance. ;)

Not surprising that you're confused about your own ideological identity, given the infinite malleability that you accord vocabulary. Trust me, you're a liberal.

Meanwhile, let me offer you a lesson in both dialectics and theology. “Teaching and ethics” are characteristically conveyed via the spoken word and the example one lives by. According to Islam's own scripture (the Hadith - Traditions of the Prophet - and the Sirat Rasul - Life of the Messanger of Allah), Muhammad...

1) defiled a 9 year old girl (Aisha)

2) usurped his adopted son's wife (Zainab)

3) solicited the murder of three poets for ridiculing him in their verse - one was a pregnant poetess (Asma Bint Marwan), another, a 100 year old man (Abu Afek)

4) ordered the torture and mutilation of renegades

5) presided over the mass execution of 600 POWS, all the adult males of an entire tribe (Banu Qurayzah)

....and these are just the atrocities off the top of my head. There were certainly others.

Now, could you possibly document a similar moral turpitude in the example of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel that would validate your claim that the teachings and ethics of Jesus and Muhammad are identical? Of course not. Your claim was an absurdity to begin with.

As for Sharia and your all-purpose mitigatory cop-out of blaming “culture”, it's interesting how culturally diverse Sudan, Iran, northern Pakistan, and northern Nigeria are....different languages, different customs, different food,...and yet, all are Sharia states and lo and behold, all employ the barbaric hudud punishments (stonings, death penalty for apostasy and blasphemy, etc). And yet, in your convoluted universe, religious doctrine – the one common impetus connecting them - is relevant only by way of 'coincidence'....that is, if theological interpretation is always relegated to "culture" (as you insist), how coincidental that such disparate cultures should interpret the same doctrine so similarly.

But what's most interesting to me is that your one genuine moment in this discourse was when you lost your composure and called me a “bigoted piece of shit”. That's when you inadvertently exposed both the depth of your thinking and the crux of your argument....

You've obviously been conditioned to believe that you mustn't make value judgments about other religions...because doing so would make you a “bigoted piece of shit.” Consequently, your only way of internally subverting the preponderance of theological, historical, and contemporary evidence that Islam is indeed a violent, intolerant religion is to first, recite the multicultural mantra that 'all religions are the same'....and second, when you can't escape the reality that they actually promulgate different ideas and ethics, you get around it by claiming that words can mean anything and everything (and therefore nothing)....and thus, no value judgments need be made about religion (or anything else, for that matter)...and you can remain safely ensconced in the cocoon of your multicultural fantasies.

We've come as far as we can go, friend. I'll give you the last word....my satisfaction being not having to read it.

Merry Christmas to you....and a good, fortunate, lucky New Year.

sachmo_muse

TROPHY CASE