Crusader War College

In an interview last month on Al-Arabiya TV, former Saudi Shura Council member Ibrahim Al-Buleihi said that Arab individualism has been erased, rendering the Arab "incapable of independent thinking," and that what prevails is "the spirit of the herd that cannot free itself from the captivity of the prevailing culture."

In the interview, which aired on February 26, 2010, Al-Buleihi sang the praises of Western civilization, saying that notions such as human rights are not "an accumulated achievement, in which all societies played a role, but an achievement of the West." Arab societies "should benefit from this rich experience," rather than remaining "a burden on the West."

The transcript is here.

A lot of people cling to the belief that God is inherently unfair and not good given the following threat from Exodus 20:

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

It is, of course, ignored that the punishment of the fathers falls on the children to the third and fourth generation, while mercy is shown to thousands of generations that love him.

This threat is repeated in Exodus 34:7, with some clarification that is often ignored deliberately:

5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. 6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, 7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. (Ex. 34:5-7)

What is the purpose of these threats? The first thing to recognize is that these indeed are threats, but they are plainly directed to the descendants of the guilty. Secondly, it should be recognized that, in those days, it was customary for marriages to be very early and with the goal of having children as soon as possible. Thus, it was very much possible for the guilty one who worshipped idols to see their great grand children (the fourth generation).

I believe the way to look at these verses is to realize that when religious men and women knowingly commit evil, they will justify the sin or the attempt to manage the consequences of their sin by a seeming "selfless" appeal. "It's for the children!" is the cry being given today for government mandated health care, one world government, pacifism, abortion, environmentalism, the war on terrorism, and destruction of the economy in the name of controlling "man originated global warming". "Certainly what we are doing is not good right now," they say, "but it is okay because I am not doing it for myself, but for those who will come after me." It is said that the wealthy tend to look 100 years down the line while the poor don't look past the next paycheck. Thus, this threat is directed to those who claim to have a "long term vision" that mandates their "evil" actions today in the name of averting some future threat or gaining some future benefit.

Whether this is what they honestly believe or is merely a pretext is irrelevant: the intent is to disarm opponents that would keep them from performing those actions or who would punish them as part of a process to derail what they set into motion. In a sense, these people are employing virtual human shields. Like cowardly terrorists who flee to civilian areas knowing that Western forces will not chase them down if there is a good chance of civilian casualties resulting from it, these appeal to the threat to current children or children not yet born that would result from executing justice on them and undoing their acts.

What must be kept in mind when dealing with such people is that such behavior is calculated. That is, they have not only meticulously planned out what they were going to do, but engaged in a cost/benefit calculation that was used to come up with contingency plans to mitigate the costs: "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN" is the implementation of a contingency plan born of a mitigation strategy. The argument against government intrusion into economic affairs is based on the fact that government aid and restrictions affect the cost/benefit analysis, and thus affects the actions of those making those calculations.

What is God doing in these passages? He is acting to counter-mitigate this argument! "If you truly CARED for future generations, know that what I am requiring will truly benefit thousands of future generations if you obey my commandments today. Thus, because those future generations are what you purport to value, I will not only threaten them for what you do, but I will make sure that that punishment falls on the generations that you do see."

That God takes into account the perverse calculations of the human heart is seen when this commandment is seemingly reversed in Ezekiel 18. In that chapter, the parents believe that these verses imply that the children totally bear the parents sins, while beliving that they are suffering the consequences of the sins of their parents. Rather than repent and count on the Lord's word that he would have mercy on thousands of generations that love and obey him, they decide that the best way to mitigate the pain they are suffering is to indulge the sins of pleasure, reasoning that the pain from THOSE sins will be shifted off of them to their children. It is even more perverse behavior if their fathers were righteous so the suffering they are enduring is due to the natural consequences of the sins of their neighbors splashing over onto them because they didn't want to "rock the boat" or "cause trouble" by holding their sinning neighbors to account: Rather than execute true justice on the ones causing corporate suffering, they start this inter-generational pissing contest by their sins. God "messes" things up by negating the inter-generational threat and declares he would judge people by what they do, rather than what their fathers did.

Those who complain about God's justice should note Ezekiel 18:25-29:

25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? 26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. 27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. 28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?

We may laugh today at what we see as the obvious perversity of that generation who complained of God's ways "not being equal" when it was obvious that "their ways were unequal"! In the same way, future generations will look back at the fools of our day and laugh at them for their belief that God would be blamed for their use of human shields! Men's moralities may not change as often as the spring clothing styles, but change they do. God's morality never changes and is always beneficial, regardless of the time or the foolish beliefs of men.

Rick Hills at prawfsblog has an interesting post on pseudo-intellectualism.

From South Dakota Lawyer via Belmont Club.

An excellent article on the soulsearching and revisions of the chief Islamist theoretician, Dr. Fadl. It's a large article, with a lot of food for thought.

Goodness gracious! How Spengler spells out the obvious at the link! Go read it all, for it would be copyright infringement for me to quote all the parts that are relevant: I.e. the whole thing!

Here are some good ones:

Strictly speaking, I do not quite agree with Wilders that the Koran should be banned along with Hitler’s Mein Kampf as an incitement to violence. Nonetheless, he is doing precisely the right thing. A house divided against itself cannot stand, as Abraham Lincoln quoted the Gospels as he made ready to tear down the half that was misbehaving. No civilized state can abide a rival from within who contests the monopoly of violence of legitimate government. If governments refuse to act, the optimal course of action is pre-emptive: bring matters to a decision as fast as possible before the rot destroys the entire house.

And.

Not since lions tore apart slaves for the prurient enjoyment of the Roman mob has Europe witnessed a spectacle as revolting as Hirsi Ali’s appearance last week before the European Parliament. She has lived under guard since Theo van Gogh’s murder in 2004. To its shame, the Dutch government has stopped paying for her security. On February 14 she asked the European Parliament to fund her security, saying: "The threats to my life have not subsided and the cost is beyond anything I can pay ... I find myself in a very desperate position. I don't want to die. I want to live and I love life. I'm going to do anything legal to get help."

Before the eyes of the world, a leading citizen of the Netherlands begs the legislature of Europe to protect her against assassins whose declared goal is the destruction of Europe’s liberties as well as its civilization. The Dutch government turns its back. Europe’s Parliament listens politely and refers the matter to committee.

The best summary of the Archbishop of Canterbury sharia comment I've found is this:

I am ashamed to say that it did not become clear to me that Wilders has taken the only appropriate course of action until I read carefully the Archbishop of Canterbury’s now-infamous "sharia" speech. Stripped of casuistry, he proposed that Muslim women subject to forced marriages, genital mutilation, or domestic violence should be handed over to Muslim religious courts, rather than be offered the protection of English Common Law. To my knowledge, this is the first time that one of Europe’s spiritual leaders has proposed to abandon innocent victims to their fate.

Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams, to be sure, has a point. But he should have stated plainly what he really thinks. What he wanted to say is more or less: "To protect a few hundred or a few thousand colored ladies, the English state will have to put its big boots on, kick down the doors of Muslim homes, trample through Muslim living rooms, tear up the fabric of Muslim communities, and disrupt the social order. Why not turn such cases over to religious courts and wash our hands of them?" I reiterate: this is satanic hypocrisy.

If decent and well-meaning men like Dr Williams are so afraid of communal violence as to abandon the founding principles of common law and Judeo-Christian ethics, it is long past time to debate the fine points. Blessed are the pre-emptors, for they will get on with it.

Hattip Anguper via Rantburg, with much gratitude.

=> Read more!

Actually, the guy makes a good case.

Hattip John Ray at Dissecting Leftism.

Sean Corrigan's ballad on the origins of the recent economic crisis.

Or that's what Riley Driver, a letter writer to Amercian Spectator, notes (emphasis mine):

Ari Kaufman's What Conservative Media? while spot on missed the point on why so may liberal leftists think the media is balanced or conservative.

They know the political ‘stuff' is clearly biased in their liberal leftist direction, but they are railing against the news as a whole.

I first became aware of this when discussing how liberal campuses are with a liberal acquaintance of mine. He vehemently disagreed. His rationale? All those science, math, business, and medical courses that would not yield to opinion or feeling - they were by definition (for him) conservative.

Over time it became clear this was not a random opinion or thought process. Liberals find things that cannot be swayed by opinion or feelings to be intrinsically conservative.

Hit them with facts and more facts and eventually their response will be some form of name calling. It's all they know to do - so far.

But holding my nose and dipping into the DU from time to time and there is a sense of violence in the air when too many facts are presented and name calling no longer satisfies.

Facts - a liberal's conservative enemy.

This is an interesting observation: Conservatism is apparently being associated with the concept of "being resistant to change", but the REASON for that resistance is not even considered. After all, what you believe now is not important, provided that you change your beliefs in response to "opinion and feelings", rather than to unchanging realities such as facts. And religion. And God (who generates both).

Hattip John Ray at Dissecting Leftism.

The link is to the Pope Benedict's speech at the University of Regensburg, that has been the "cause" of the ruckus amongst Muslims.

Oldspook, a Rantburg regular, made the following comment to the above article, in which a NATO official appeals to the United States to open negotiations with the Taliban and come to an understanding.

The problem is the writer does NOT understand the fundamentalists.

The ONLY available positions for any non-Islamic opponent, in the view of the Talib, is either footstool (subservience/dhimmitude) or rug (you die and they take your stuff).

These are not typical marxist or drug-lord rebels, these are people on a mission from God (in their minds). They consider death a reward, not something to be avoided. There is no negotiation.

That's the big problem with liberals, left and others on that side, like the writer: they are NOT people of faith, so they have no concept of how faith can drive a person's life, for better or worse. And in the case of Islamic fundamentalists, it is far worse -they have distorted and warped things to where only violence is preached.

We are not trying to contain Stalin, we are fighting something as elemental as fire.

The only way to beat it is to extinguish it.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-09-19 10:20

Right on the money, Oldspook.

In his usual style and flair, our Beloved Emperor Misha goes after a hopelessly outclassed and clueless commentator who tries to deconstruct and disarm the word "Islamofacist", as well as take President Bush to taks for using it.

The latest big lie unveiled by Washington’s neoconservatives are the poisonous terms, “Islamo-Fascists” and “Islamic Fascists.” They are the new, hot buzzwords among America’s far right and Christian fundamentalists.

So new, in fact, that His Majesty clearly remembers using them back in, say, 2002. But mayhap all that was old is new again? Or maybe Eric is just too much of a dumbass to pay attention to those he is trying to write about?

President George W. Bush made a point last week of using “Islamofacists” when recently speaking of Hezbullah and Hamas – both, by the way, democratically elected parties. A Canadian government minister from the Conservative Party compared Lebanon’s Hezbullah to Nazi Germany.

The National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany was, by the way, democratically elected, something that would seem to make the comparison even more apt, even by Eric’s exacting, pro-Islamofascist standards. No, the Austrian Maniac (and we’re not referring to Arnold Schwarzenegger here) didn’t come to power via a Putsch, or coup. He tried that once, which is how he ended up with a lot of time to write that heap of execrable crap known as Mein Kampf while occupying a cell in Landsberg.

Go there to see how a righteous fisking is REALLY done. Bravo!

For Muslim women, that is...

Hattip Bersoeker via Rantburg.

According to Denis Prager, ZIP.

If you are ever morally confused about a major world issue, here is a rule that is almost never violated: Whenever you hear that "world opinion" holds a view, assume it is morally wrong.

And here is a related rule if your religious or national or ethnic group ever suffers horrific persecution: "World opinion" will never do a thing for you. Never.

"World opinion" has little or nothing to say about the world's greatest evils and regularly condemns those who fight evil.

The history of "world opinion" regarding the greatest mass murders and cruelties on the planet is one of relentless apathy.

Ask:

* the 1.5 million Armenians massacred by the Ottoman Turks; or
* the 6 million Ukrainians slaughtered by Stalin; or
* the tens of millions of other Soviet citizens killed by Stalin's Soviet Union; or
* the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their helpers throughout Europe; or
* the 60 million Chinese butchered by Mao; or
* the 2 million Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot; or
* the millions killed and enslaved in Sudan; or
* the Tutsis murdered in Rwanda's genocide; or
* the millions starved to death and enslaved in North Korea; or
* the million Tibetans killed by the Chinese; or
* the million-plus Afghans put to death by Brezhnev's Soviet Union.

Ask any of these poor souls, or the hundreds of millions of others slaughtered, tortured, raped and enslaved in the last 100 years, if "world opinion" did anything for them.

On the other hand, we learn that "world opinion" is quite exercised over Israel's unintentional killing of a few hundred Lebanese civilians behind whom hides Hezbollah -- a terror group that intentionally sends missiles at Israeli cities and whose announced goals are the annihilation of Israel and the Islamicization of Lebanon. And, of course, "world opinion" was just livid at American abuses of some Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. In fact, "world opinion" is constantly upset with America and Israel, two of the most decent countries on earth, yet silent about the world's cruelest countries.

Read the REASONS why "World opinion" is upset ONLY with America and Israel. Recommended.

hattip anonymous5089 via Rantburg

Clicking on the link will take you to Our Beloved Emperor's latest commentary on the Kos Kid's most recent convention. He does not as much talk about what happened as much as what did NOT happen:

Not Much Kossing at the Yearly Kos (A Post in Which I Ramble On and On in Hopes that I Might Reach an Actual Point)

At least that seems to be the conclusion (albeit somewhat simplified by yours truly) in this post from IB The Jawa Report as well as elsewhere among “infiltrators” who attended the over-hyped event in hopes of actual, you know, debate.

(...)

I’m not surprised, however.

I can certainly understand why so many people were taken aback by the lack of actual debate and critical questions...

Emperor Darth Misha then goes on to point out how Conservatives and Liberals (as broad groups) react to debate. This confirms my rule of thumb that those repressing discussion (among other things) do so for less-than-noble reasons.

Ignore the less than self-complimentary title and read the whole thing, which is not a ramble at all, but a penetrating meta-analysis, not of a specific debate, but of the nature of debate, the nature of those who do it, and the nature of those who discourage it.