John C. Wright ([info]johncwright) wrote,
@ 2008-11-30 23:01:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
He is asking where his father is, and crying for his mother
His parents are dead, of course, butchered like dogs.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5254810.ece

The article is too delicate to use the I-word "Islamic" or the T-word "Terrorist", but instead calls them "Militants".

Militants. Such a careful word. Such a correct, oh so correct word. So delicate. Such nicety.

As if the act of raping and murdering wives before the eyes of their husbands before killing one and the next, and killing civilian woman and children while not in uniform and announced by no declaration of war, has any purpose aside from terror.

Who teaches their children such hate?

Who teaches that Jews are the sons of pigs and apes, that Negroes are subhuman, the Women are half-human, and must be kept in trashbags, and kept as collector's items, killed when they wear make-up, and teaches that homosexuals must be thrown off buildings?

Which religion is it? Is it the Christians, perhaps, or the Buddhists? Perhaps it is the followers of Shinto or Confucius? No? Then who?

Ah, it must be the Mormons. That is why the pro-perversion partisans are burning Bibles in front of the Mormon churches, and sending them letters filled with suspicious powders! Would the Toleration Lobby ever protest before a Mosque? Or the loud-mouthed Feminist, the bravest of the brave? Would you print a Danish cartoon, or write a book mocking the child-bride of Mahound? Why, no!

And why is this, O boldest partisans of the godless Left? It is because the enemy has already won in the only battlefield that matters. You are afraid even to say their names. To you they are merely "Militants" and to you they are not an enemy to be feared.

You cannot call them heretics and infidels, because you have nothing sacred from which to be heterodox. You cannot call them soulless butchers because you do not believe in souls, and, to you, a butcher who slaughters livestock is more abhorrent than a murderer who kills people, so it is no worthy metaphor to call them butchers.

You cannot call them vermin, because the fox and the stoat and the rat and the wolf, and other beasts that destroy livestock, and are the enemies of man, are protected species in your hearts, worth more to you than human life.

You cannot call them dishonorable, because, to you, the laws of war are meaningless: you never had any honor to begin with, so how can you understand the difference between a man who fights in uniform, and a terrorist who kills women and children? Ah, but to kill woman and children does not outrage you, because it is sexist and age-ist to protect women and children. Besides, what are children aside from abortions that escaped the knife?

You have no words to call them. You have nothing to call them. You cannot even call them fascists, which is what they are, or theocratic totalitarians, which is what they are, because those words have been used up. That is what you call Christians and Republicans: the only people who might save you from the Beast.

How long, O Santiago Matamoros, how long?

How long until must we endure? How long will we hear the fools cry 'peace, peace' when there is no peace? How long will the traitors among us aid our enemies, open our jails, publish our espionage for them?

How long will the West lack a leader?

Send us, Saint James the Moor-slayer, a heart that knows courage, and hands that forget not the sword!




(41 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]vitruvian23
2008-12-01 04:31 am UTC (link)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/nyregion/29chabad.html?em

Better? The killers are not only forthrightly called terrorists, but the toddler's rescue is properly identified as heroic. Not only that, but the faith-based good works of the Holtzberg clan are described in fairly glowing

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]johncwright
2008-12-01 05:39 am UTC (link)
"In an earlier rescue that Lubavitch rabbis called heroic"

This is better. Still not enough. I am pleasantly surprised to see the New York Times call the vermin 'terrorists.'


(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]eonomine88
2008-12-01 12:26 pm UTC (link)
I should rather have St. Francis again than St. James. Whereas James destroyed the bodies of Muslims, St. Francis nearly saved their souls. Given another shot at it, I'm positive the little lad of Assisi could truly triumph.

And besides, we should know by now that fighting Muslims physically is counterproductive both to our own security, and to the more important task of healing their broken souls in Christ Jesus.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]johncwright
2008-12-01 02:59 pm UTC (link)
"we should know by now that fighting Muslims physically is counterproductive both to our own security..."

Leaving aside, for the moment, the idea that fighting is counterproductive to the task of healing, who in the world has told you, and how can anyone even think it possible, that fighting is counterproductive to the task of seeing to our own security?

Do you think surrender would produce less aggression on the part of the enemy?

Do you think they only kill the Jews who fight back, but that they spare the innocent and peaceful?

Do you honestly think these attacks are provoked, and only provoked, by our attempt to resist these attacks?

There are two drawbacks to this posture: 1. It places the moral weight of the blame on the victim: in this specific case, a two-year-old, and exonerates the attacker, in this specific case, nonuniformed soldiers, trained in Pakistan, whose purpose is deliberately to commit crimes so sadistic and so random and so irrational as to defy parallel. They lay awake at night dreaming of deeper and more abhorrent evil to do, attempting deliberately to be as pure in evil as possible, which is the mere opposite of what civilized soldiers and political leaders do.

2. It saps the will to fight.

Anyone who says the Crusade against these enemies of Christianity, humanity and civilization is counterproductive has assumed the supine posture of a slave. You are practically begging for you and your loved ones to be killed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]eonomine88
2008-12-01 03:13 pm UTC (link)
I am most certainly not against fighting in self-defense, even though I myself cannot due to my disability, and will not due to my convictions.

But neither do I understand how campaigning to butcher the butcherers makes amends for their butchering. I stand in the same position Jacob did in Genesis 32. I see evil on both sides, and the good guys are nowhere to be found.

Let God avenge the death of the toddler's parents, in his own way. I won't. For one, the men who committed the atrocity are dead. Should we therefore go kill their family members instead?

Muslims aren't the enemy. Islam, to a certain degree, is indeed the enemy, but not those under its sway. They are prisoners of war, meant to be freed from the cruel ideology that enslaves them. The tyrant we fight is not of flesh and blood.

St. James the Mooreslayer had his place, which was to free an oppressed country and drive back ruthless invaders. But if he could have, he would have faced his opponents on the battlefield of the mind instead. Currently, we are in a position to still do such a thing, and the necessity of violence has not yet arisen.

Physical war is the option of last resort. Even martyrdom is to be preferred to it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]marycatelli
2008-12-01 03:22 pm UTC (link)
But the purpose is not to make amends. The purpose is to stop them.

And one is entitled to chose martyrdom only for one's self.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]eonomine88
2008-12-01 03:34 pm UTC (link)
We can stop them by winning hearts. That's my whole point.

People are already doing all they can to shut down terrorist networks, and I applaud such efforts. They are necessary. However, fullscale wars are not necessary, nor is violence against anything other than immediate threats.

But the terrorists are just going to keep coming until someone destroys the ideology that produces them. Thus, the greatest weapon against Islamic fundamentalists is using form-criticism, philosophy, and history to destroy the very foundation of their belief-system, namely the Quran.

http://www.truthnet.org/islam/source.htm

We can also defeat them by pointing out the immorality of their "prophet," and thus bring the influx of their converts to a halt. Get them at the source, that's the game.

Sun Tzu would whole-heartedly applaud this strategy. And besides being very subtle and deadly to our opposition, it is non-violent. Yet, the attack I advocate can do far more than destroy bodies and buildings. It can destroy an entire false religion that commands the obedience of perhaps a billion souls.

We can win without firing a shot, if we're courageous and persistent enough.

And speaking of courage, when was the last time you engaged a Muslim in dialogue or debate? When have you tried to convert someone away from Islam, or stop them converting to Islam?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]robert_mitchell
2008-12-01 04:16 pm UTC (link)
We can win hearts and lose the war. The culture must be changed, yes. However, the religious culture is not the problem, the tribal culture is. Islam lived in peace for centuries under the Ottoman empire. Now, with the great peace and wealth freedom and trade have given us, the losses the tribal "elections" are now a big problem, one that was unnoticed in the past, when we had bigger problems. The only way we have successfully changed cultures in the past is by breaking and routing them, and then showing kindness, as we did with our new allies, the Germans and the Japanese. You want to do step two without step one tilling the soil for you. Good luck with that. And the religious war you hope for (pointless as I believe it is) is doomed to fail as long as we have a "separation of Church and State". Right now people are trying to bring the good word to this empty souls. They are killed by the current, jealous governments of Arabia, and their bibles burned.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]eonomine88
2008-12-01 04:33 pm UTC (link)
...ummm, have you read the Quran? The religion IS the problem, and if not in the sense of being a source of violence, then most definitely in the sense of being a source of heresy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]robert_mitchell
2008-12-01 04:53 pm UTC (link)
I have read the Quran, at least an English translation, which I am told is not the "pure" Quran. And the Bible demands the white man to keep black men as slaves. As in all other ages, the Good is used as cover for the Bad. What are the Arabs doing that is different then what any tribal culture would do with money? They are nomadic and tribal, and the transition to civilized is painful, as it was for us. We could speed it up, but you don't seem willing to "take up the White man's burden", so we will just muddle through.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]eonomine88
2008-12-01 04:54 pm UTC (link)
"And the Bible demands the white man to keep black men as slaves."

What the hell? Where?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]robert_mitchell
2008-12-01 05:44 pm UTC (link)
Do you think the South had no Christan preachers arguing for slavery before and during the Civil war? It's amazing what you can find in a text when you want to.....

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]eonomine88
2008-12-01 05:48 pm UTC (link)
Yes, but you claimed "And the Bible demands the white man keep black men as slaves." You did not say Southern preachers did so, you said the Bible itself did so. Where is your evidence?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]robert_mitchell
2008-12-01 06:07 pm UTC (link)
Southern preachers are known for taking the Bible literally. I have not gone looking for their sad justifications but if I had to guess, I would start with the sons of Ham, and of course, with the slaves the chosen of God took in war, as documented and tallied in the Old Testament.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]eonomine88
2008-12-01 06:10 pm UTC (link)
The sons of Ham were the Canaanites, not the Africans...

Israel never took any slaves from Africa, though they were enslaved by Africans once or twice. And besides, nobody in question here, on either side, was caucasian.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]robert_mitchell
2008-12-01 06:27 pm UTC (link)
So you agree that the Bible allows for the taking of slaves. How hard would it be for a sinner to read the Bible in such a way as to "believe" the Bible encourages slavery?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]eonomine88
2008-12-01 08:34 pm UTC (link)
I never said anything, one way or the other, about the Bible allowing for slavery.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]robert_mitchell
2008-12-01 09:10 pm UTC (link)
Didn't you? You said Israel never took slaves from Africa, which implies they took slaves from other places. You didn't give an example of God telling the Israelis this was wrong, which would seem to allow for slavery, if we are going off the Bible.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]weatheredpebble
2008-12-01 10:44 pm UTC (link)
You said Israel never took slaves from Africa, which implies they took slaves from other places.

Arguing from silence. Saying "they never took slaves from Africa" does not imply they did take slaves from other places.

You didn't give an example of God telling the Israelis this was wrong, which would seem to allow for slavery, if we are going off the Bible.

Another argument from silence. A weak one at that, as God demanded the Jews not take each other as slaves in the Levitical law.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]robert_mitchell
2008-12-01 11:21 pm UTC (link)
Then why not say "they never took slaves"? taking slaves from Africa doesn't make it better or worse.... As to your second point, not being able to enslave "your kind" would seem to make it ok to enslave "not your kind", ie, blacks. A perverse argument to be sure, but I'm sure those who made it would be amazed at the knots we've tied ourselves into over "abortion", which is, of course, worse then slavery.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]headnoises
2008-12-02 01:42 am UTC (link)
Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
robert_mitchell
2008-12-01 04:53 pm UTC (link)
I have read the Quran, at least an English translation, which I am told is not the "pure" Quran. And the Bible demands the white man to keep black men as slaves.

becomes
...
The Israelites took slaves.
Totally ignoring that the old Test. has many rather nasty things happening, and that the law was fulfilled by Christ....

As to your second point, not being able to enslave "your kind" would seem to make it ok to enslave "not your kind", ie, blacks.

Logically incorrect.

That the light is off when the switch is set one way does not mean the light will be on when it's turned the other-- especially when the switch isn't connected to the light.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]robert_mitchell
2008-12-02 02:16 am UTC (link)
I'm sorry if I am not being clear. I am not arguing that taking and having slaves is ok. What I am arguing is that people were able to use the Bible to provide "cover" for their sin of enslaving their fellow man, like evil Arabs are using the Quran to "cover" their envy and murder of their fellow man. My point is that this is not a religious war, this is a war between tribal culture and Civilization. The religious aspect, I believe, is a mask.....

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]headnoises
2008-12-02 02:26 am UTC (link)
You did not say that people have used the Bible as an excuse; you stated:
And the Bible demands the white man to keep black men as slaves.

Please either support the statement or admit that the Bible says no such thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]howling_wolf
2008-12-02 02:09 am UTC (link)
"So you agree that the Bible allows for the taking of slaves. How hard would it be for a sinner to read the Bible in such a way as to "believe" the Bible encourages slavery?"

The Bible said no such thing. Slavery was not an issue then, but a cultural artifact. It is disingenuous to say that the Bible promotes slavery, Southern preachers or no.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]marycatelli
2008-12-01 11:54 pm UTC (link)
Let's get back to the actual subject instead of this tangent.

And the Bible demands the white man to keep black men as slaves.

Chapter and verse, please.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]robert_mitchell
2008-12-02 12:03 am UTC (link)
I don't believe there is a Chapter and verse that would even come close to that, if the Bible is being read with eyes unclouded by hate. But I know the Southern Baptists, who tend to a very tight reading of the Bible, tending to the literal, split from the Baptists over Slavery before the Civil War. I'm sure they were able to quote chapter and verse, while still being wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't blame the Bible the wrongs men have read out of it, and I don't blame Islam for what a bunch of tribal losers have read into it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]howling_wolf
2008-12-02 02:17 am UTC (link)
Some of its pretty explicit. There's a reason why Islamic "liberals" are having a hard time. Tribal culture is a factor, sure. But it is enabled by so many actual, hard writings from the Koran and the Hadiths explicitly calling for violence.

As for the Southern Baptists, "literal" interpretations of the Bible are as diverse as there are readers of the Bible. So, Southern Baptists reading slavery into the Bible does not mean the Bible allows it. Produce an actual verse that explicitly says so, otherwise, leave Southern Baptist projection out of this, for it is no proof.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]marycatelli
2008-12-02 03:19 am UTC (link)
I don't believe there is a Chapter and verse that would even come close to that, if the Bible is being read with eyes unclouded by hate. But I know the Southern Baptists, who tend to a very tight reading of the Bible, tending to the literal, split from the Baptists over Slavery before the Civil War.

Then you owe us all an apology.

You said "And the Bible demands the white man to keep black men as slaves." And now you admit that you know this is false.

When people say that the Koran demands jihad, they mean what they say.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Blogging the Qur'an
[info]marycatelli
2008-12-02 03:25 am UTC (link)
BTW, I recommend Bloggin the Qur'an for anyone interested in the Koran.

He's not done, but he's done quite a bit.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]robert_mitchell
2008-12-02 03:43 am UTC (link)
Then I apologize. Obviously my use of metaphor is a problem, insofar as I got into similar trouble with "have you stopped beating your wife?". As to the Koran demanding jihad, yes they mean what they say, as did others who meant what they said. I have noticed that the definition of jihad is something argued over, much as the meaning of much of the Bible is argued over. It's one of the reasons that I believe the Bible should not be taken literally, and one of the reasons I don't take the Koran literally. If I were to fault the Islamics for anything, it would be their lack, just like the Protestants, of hierarchy. Having the Pope presiding over the Catholic church has been a great blessing for us, while the Protestants and Islamics seem to endlessly schism into smaller weaker communities.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]marycatelli
2008-12-02 04:34 am UTC (link)
When you contrast a literal usage to a figurative one, yes, use of metaphor is a problem.

I point out that people who are physically incapable of fighting are exempt from jihad.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]robert_mitchell
2008-12-02 04:58 am UTC (link)
It's all good. Ya'll proved my core point better then I could have.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]jordan179
2009-01-10 11:24 am UTC (link)
And the Bible demands the white man to keep black men as slaves.

Actually, it says that the Semites may rightfully keep the "children of Ham" (whoever they are) as slaves. The identification of the "children of Shem" with 19th-century white Americans and the "children of Ham" with Negroes is based on rather dubious reasoning. Genesis is at least 2500 years old, and probably based on far older sources: its concept of the world and of the human race is more than a bit provincial by our standards.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]botticelli_s
2008-12-01 07:16 pm UTC (link)
Islam lived in peace for centuries under the Ottoman empire.

Except, of course, for their constant assaults on Europe from the eighth century until the seventeenth, which marked an end to their attempts to conquer Christendom by arms.

It is unfair to suggest that any of us "hopes" for a religious war. There is a violent clash of civilizations occurring right now, and many of us are afraid it will get much, much worse. Maggots do not attack a living body. Western civilization, what Toynbee called Western Latin Christendom, is in the midst of a large-scale apostasy from the very principles which built it. The Mohammedans sense this and are moving in for the kill. What I hope for, (vice a religious war) is repentance and conversion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]marycatelli
2008-12-01 08:43 pm UTC (link)
We have been promised that we are not going to win all the hearts before Doomsday.

So, until then, we need to be willing to fight as well as convert.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]m_francis
2008-12-01 06:14 pm UTC (link)
Thus, the greatest weapon against Islamic fundamentalists is using form-criticism, philosophy, and history to destroy the very foundation of their belief-system, namely the Quran.

Form-criticism, forsooth! I can see them quaking in their boots already.

Just as there are Christians who think they can read the Bible without reference to the traditions, there are muslims who think they can ignore the ijtahid of the Schools.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]automatthew
2008-12-01 03:27 pm UTC (link)
"Physical war is the option of last resort. Even martyrdom is to be preferred to it."

Boo.

Ius ad bellum is a little more complicated.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: You do understand they raped the women before their husbands eyes before killing them?
[info]howling_wolf
2008-12-02 02:12 am UTC (link)
"St. James the Mooreslayer had his place, which was to free an oppressed country and drive back ruthless invaders. But if he could have, he would have faced his opponents on the battlefield of the mind instead. Currently, we are in a position to still do such a thing, and the necessity of violence has not yet arisen."

Without St. James the Moor-slayer, St. Francis would've grown up a medieval version of a Janissary. Or the slave to some petty sheik.

Do not underestimate the magnitude of the contributions of those who fought. There is a time for war, and a time for peace, a time to heal and a time to kill.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Captain blood
[info]basx
2008-12-01 01:32 pm UTC (link)
economie88:
Invoking both saints is quite compatible. We can invoke Santiago (and St Michael the archangel) to give those scum their due and then St Francis to convert Moslems hearts to holy Trinity.

Undoubtedly the more thoughtful Moslems are deeply disgusted at the evil and merely affirm their understanding that Islam is a false religion

xavier

(Reply to this)

NPR Radio Interview from India
[info]dustiam
2008-12-01 11:04 pm UTC (link)
National Public Radio interviewed a Muslim man in Mumbai who kept saying that what was happening was not typical of Islam. I bet people believed him, too. NPR didn't interview any other Indians on their thoughts... Sorry--not enough time.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: NPR Radio Interview from India
[info]marycatelli
2008-12-01 11:52 pm UTC (link)
Why is he telling us that?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(41 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…