Friday, April 28, 2006
Islamist Racism 101
Ace Of Spades lays out the true nature of Islamofascism as a virulent strain of racism that not only approves of, but indeed calls for the murder of infidels (non-Muslims) as a matter of course, by any means necessary including those condemned by western conventions, while claiming protection under the very rules of honor they mock with their unbridled barbarity.
I'm posting this article in full because it needs to be available everywhere. This is about behavior, as I've been saying forever. This is about Islamist racism and the cost we must exact upon its practitioners:
Islamism = Racism
Which is why we can't extend the Geneva Conventions to enemies who do not respect the conventions in turn. Like Islamists.
Consider:
Islamists believe their holy book gives them license to murder, rape, and maim "infidels." And also: to lie as regards surrenders and treaties, treating these as mere opportunities to regroup for the next attack.
Such behavior is considered dishonorable by every one else in the world (if not outright inhuman).
But not for Islamists. The dishonorable and inhuman is permitted as long as the victims of such dishonorable and inhuman treatment are not practicing Muslims.
Martial honor, at least in the West, is historically a matter of compact. A knight, for example, owed honorable conduct towards those who themselves possessed honor. An enemy knight considered honorable was owed honorable treatment in return. If he intended to fight unhorsed, you were required, by honor, to get off your own horse, so as not to have a dishonorable advantage over him. If he yielded, you were obligated to grant him mercy and not simply behead him.
A more lenient code applied to those who weren't considered honorable. A commoner shooting at you with a crossbow wasn't honorable, not only because he wasn't of the knightly class, but also because he wasn't using an honorable weapon. A Christian ethic of mercy and fair treatment might be owed to such an enemy, but not the greater duties demanded by honor.
The Geneva Conventions are similarly granted according to compact, and to those who, by agreeing to them and actually obeying them, demonstrate themselves to have honor and to be owed honor in return. There are more pracitical reasons the Conventions, by their own words, apply in full force only to those who agree to be bound by their strictures themselves -- namely, one would like to give incentives for merciful and humane treatment of prisoners, and provide disincentives for those who don't provide such treatment, namely, the freeing of opponents of such dishonorable enemies from extending to them such fair treatment.
However, the Conventions still, whether by happenstance or because of cultural norms, are a compact, a system by which those with honor are treated with honor and those without honor are treated... humanely, but not quite well.
And as a compact, the Conventions are based upon behavior, not inherent status. Soldiers of the most evil regime of the twentieth century -- Nazi soldiers -- were owed humane treatment because the Nazis, despite their other evils, did in fact treat American and other allied prisoners of war reasonably well. (Most of the time, at least.)
And, historically, there wasn't necessarily any reason why the most evil opponent couldn't also have honor, and be owed honorable treatment. True enough, thuggish and cruel men would tend to not have honor, by bent of personality and lack of morality; but a cruel and bloodthirsty opponent could yet treat his defeated opponents humanely and be considered honorable, if cruel.
At which point we come to the Islamists.
The Islamists do not believe that honor is owed to opponents based upon their behavior, or their adherence to a certain code which requires reciprocal honor to that code. The Islamists believe that honorable, or even humane, treatment is only owed to other Islamists, or other fervent Muslims of the same branch of Islam.
To the extent they treat enemies honorably, they do so only based upon inherent status. A fervent Muslim of the same branch of Islam, and only such a person, is owed honor. No one else, no matter how honorable their behavior, is owed honorable behavior in return. Or even to be treated as something more than an animal to be ritually slaughtered.
Islamists are permitted to murder, rape, cheat, and lie to any non-Islamist. Their religion says so, they assert.
Of course, they don't believe that non-Islamists are permitted to treat them similarly; they have a privileged status, according to the Koran. They are superior, according to the Koran.
Their enemies are animals, according to the Koran.
Were America to extend full Geneva Convention protection to Islamist enemies who do not even consider treating non-Muslim prisoners and kidnap-victims with any more dignity that a farm chicken, we would be, essentially, agreeing to and acceding to their worldview.
They are privileged by God Himself to commit all nature of barbaric actions against their infidel enemies; but their infidel enemies, of course, are not granted this license by God to act similarly. They are allowed to, even compelled, to commit the worst acts of inhumanity against their infidel opponents, for their infidel opponents are not quite human, or not to be treated as such, in any event.
But their infidel opponents must respect their special, God-granted status and treat them as truly honorable opponents.
There are many reasons to object to extending Geneva Convention protections with full force to those, like Islamicists, who delight in cruelty and inhumanity. But one reason is psychological in nature, and nevertheless worth considering.
We cannot agree with the Islamists that we are subhuman and only they are entitled to honorable and humane treatement. We must insist, particularly with these racist thugs who consider those who do not share in their creed to be animals, that honor is based on reciprocal conduct and by compact.
We cannot agree that their status as fervent Islamists makes them our superiors and creates obligations towards them that they do not extend in return towards us.
For, if we do, are we not confirming their racist beliefs? Are we not telling them that we are, just as they believe, inferior to them by God's decree, and as such, fit only for slaughter or subjugation?
The Western tradition distinuishes between honorable warriors and mere murderers. An honorable warrior does not slaughter civilians; nor does he hide among civilians out of uniform, making it necessary to target civilian populations to bring the fight to him. Nor does he behead and rape those he captures.
Killers, murderers, and criminals do, of course.
The code of Western honor does not confuse the two. Islamist "honor" does-- the most vicious murderer is praised as "Holy Warrior" for detonating himself among women, children, and non-combatant men in a pizza shop, discotheque, or even a marriage celebration in a hotel ballroom.
It is honorable to be a murderer, Islamism teaches, so long as those being killed are not Muslims.
In a war in which ideology and religious memes are so obviously important, can we afford to endorse the Islamists' view of honorable murderers?
I'm posting this article in full because it needs to be available everywhere. This is about behavior, as I've been saying forever. This is about Islamist racism and the cost we must exact upon its practitioners:
Islamism = Racism
Which is why we can't extend the Geneva Conventions to enemies who do not respect the conventions in turn. Like Islamists.
Consider:
Islamists believe their holy book gives them license to murder, rape, and maim "infidels." And also: to lie as regards surrenders and treaties, treating these as mere opportunities to regroup for the next attack.
Such behavior is considered dishonorable by every one else in the world (if not outright inhuman).
But not for Islamists. The dishonorable and inhuman is permitted as long as the victims of such dishonorable and inhuman treatment are not practicing Muslims.
Martial honor, at least in the West, is historically a matter of compact. A knight, for example, owed honorable conduct towards those who themselves possessed honor. An enemy knight considered honorable was owed honorable treatment in return. If he intended to fight unhorsed, you were required, by honor, to get off your own horse, so as not to have a dishonorable advantage over him. If he yielded, you were obligated to grant him mercy and not simply behead him.
A more lenient code applied to those who weren't considered honorable. A commoner shooting at you with a crossbow wasn't honorable, not only because he wasn't of the knightly class, but also because he wasn't using an honorable weapon. A Christian ethic of mercy and fair treatment might be owed to such an enemy, but not the greater duties demanded by honor.
The Geneva Conventions are similarly granted according to compact, and to those who, by agreeing to them and actually obeying them, demonstrate themselves to have honor and to be owed honor in return. There are more pracitical reasons the Conventions, by their own words, apply in full force only to those who agree to be bound by their strictures themselves -- namely, one would like to give incentives for merciful and humane treatment of prisoners, and provide disincentives for those who don't provide such treatment, namely, the freeing of opponents of such dishonorable enemies from extending to them such fair treatment.
However, the Conventions still, whether by happenstance or because of cultural norms, are a compact, a system by which those with honor are treated with honor and those without honor are treated... humanely, but not quite well.
And as a compact, the Conventions are based upon behavior, not inherent status. Soldiers of the most evil regime of the twentieth century -- Nazi soldiers -- were owed humane treatment because the Nazis, despite their other evils, did in fact treat American and other allied prisoners of war reasonably well. (Most of the time, at least.)
And, historically, there wasn't necessarily any reason why the most evil opponent couldn't also have honor, and be owed honorable treatment. True enough, thuggish and cruel men would tend to not have honor, by bent of personality and lack of morality; but a cruel and bloodthirsty opponent could yet treat his defeated opponents humanely and be considered honorable, if cruel.
At which point we come to the Islamists.
The Islamists do not believe that honor is owed to opponents based upon their behavior, or their adherence to a certain code which requires reciprocal honor to that code. The Islamists believe that honorable, or even humane, treatment is only owed to other Islamists, or other fervent Muslims of the same branch of Islam.
To the extent they treat enemies honorably, they do so only based upon inherent status. A fervent Muslim of the same branch of Islam, and only such a person, is owed honor. No one else, no matter how honorable their behavior, is owed honorable behavior in return. Or even to be treated as something more than an animal to be ritually slaughtered.
Islamists are permitted to murder, rape, cheat, and lie to any non-Islamist. Their religion says so, they assert.
Of course, they don't believe that non-Islamists are permitted to treat them similarly; they have a privileged status, according to the Koran. They are superior, according to the Koran.
Their enemies are animals, according to the Koran.
Were America to extend full Geneva Convention protection to Islamist enemies who do not even consider treating non-Muslim prisoners and kidnap-victims with any more dignity that a farm chicken, we would be, essentially, agreeing to and acceding to their worldview.
They are privileged by God Himself to commit all nature of barbaric actions against their infidel enemies; but their infidel enemies, of course, are not granted this license by God to act similarly. They are allowed to, even compelled, to commit the worst acts of inhumanity against their infidel opponents, for their infidel opponents are not quite human, or not to be treated as such, in any event.
But their infidel opponents must respect their special, God-granted status and treat them as truly honorable opponents.
There are many reasons to object to extending Geneva Convention protections with full force to those, like Islamicists, who delight in cruelty and inhumanity. But one reason is psychological in nature, and nevertheless worth considering.
We cannot agree with the Islamists that we are subhuman and only they are entitled to honorable and humane treatement. We must insist, particularly with these racist thugs who consider those who do not share in their creed to be animals, that honor is based on reciprocal conduct and by compact.
We cannot agree that their status as fervent Islamists makes them our superiors and creates obligations towards them that they do not extend in return towards us.
For, if we do, are we not confirming their racist beliefs? Are we not telling them that we are, just as they believe, inferior to them by God's decree, and as such, fit only for slaughter or subjugation?
The Western tradition distinuishes between honorable warriors and mere murderers. An honorable warrior does not slaughter civilians; nor does he hide among civilians out of uniform, making it necessary to target civilian populations to bring the fight to him. Nor does he behead and rape those he captures.
Killers, murderers, and criminals do, of course.
The code of Western honor does not confuse the two. Islamist "honor" does-- the most vicious murderer is praised as "Holy Warrior" for detonating himself among women, children, and non-combatant men in a pizza shop, discotheque, or even a marriage celebration in a hotel ballroom.
It is honorable to be a murderer, Islamism teaches, so long as those being killed are not Muslims.
In a war in which ideology and religious memes are so obviously important, can we afford to endorse the Islamists' view of honorable murderers?
Comments:
<< Home
What in the world was that about? Umm, now I'm not sure.. What does the article mean exactly? Does it by 'Islamists' mean the extremist maniacs who call themselves muslims, or does it mean muslims in general? And when it says that Islam permits horrible inhumane stuff to happen, does it mean that that is Islam as the extremists say, or is that what Islam really
is all about? You see, if the article, as I understood it, is saying that real Islam is racisim and muslims are racists, I find it my duty to state my humble thoughts and comment. I really don't know from where the writer of this article got his/her 'facts'. Umm, they're all wrong. Grossly wrong. I was reading and thinking WTF? I mean, it's all rubbish. No, really. It kind of reminded me of a stupid religion teacher (was fired a long time ago) that gave lectures that contained rubbish like the one you're posting. Just replace 'Islam' with 'christianity' or 'Judasim' and it'll be like I'm reading something that *itch wrote. It's a bit wierd. Assholes are in every culture. And they demonize and dehumanize each other all the time. If only they knew how much alike their ways of thinking are...
I'm a muslim girl, by the way..
And no,my parents didn't force me to marry when I was 7 and my husband doesn't abuse me and doesn't think I'm inferior and he isn't allowed to be married to five other women besides me and I can go outside if I want to and they won't stone me if I wear jeans and no I'm not a suicide bomber and I don't like people who are and no, whatever crap you think happens because Islam permits it since Islam is so horrible doesn't happen because of Islam. It happens because of individuals who want to commit crimes and make it look okay by saying Islam permitted it.(huff.. huff..)
Anyway, I'm not married. I'm a student at the local university and camels aren't the means of transportation in this third world country that I call home.
Well then... Bye. ^-^
is all about? You see, if the article, as I understood it, is saying that real Islam is racisim and muslims are racists, I find it my duty to state my humble thoughts and comment. I really don't know from where the writer of this article got his/her 'facts'. Umm, they're all wrong. Grossly wrong. I was reading and thinking WTF? I mean, it's all rubbish. No, really. It kind of reminded me of a stupid religion teacher (was fired a long time ago) that gave lectures that contained rubbish like the one you're posting. Just replace 'Islam' with 'christianity' or 'Judasim' and it'll be like I'm reading something that *itch wrote. It's a bit wierd. Assholes are in every culture. And they demonize and dehumanize each other all the time. If only they knew how much alike their ways of thinking are...
I'm a muslim girl, by the way..
And no,my parents didn't force me to marry when I was 7 and my husband doesn't abuse me and doesn't think I'm inferior and he isn't allowed to be married to five other women besides me and I can go outside if I want to and they won't stone me if I wear jeans and no I'm not a suicide bomber and I don't like people who are and no, whatever crap you think happens because Islam permits it since Islam is so horrible doesn't happen because of Islam. It happens because of individuals who want to commit crimes and make it look okay by saying Islam permitted it.(huff.. huff..)
Anyway, I'm not married. I'm a student at the local university and camels aren't the means of transportation in this third world country that I call home.
Well then... Bye. ^-^
# posted by 
: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 5:27:00 AM
: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 5:27:00 AM
You are right to be humble about your thoughts. I would have expected more in defense of whatever you say is the true nature of Islam. Where is the author wrong? How would you refute his assertions?
If "whatever crap you think happens because Islam permits it since Islam is so horrible doesn't happen because of Islam. It happens because of individuals who want to commit crimes and make it look okay by saying Islam permitted it" is true, why are "real" Muslims not fighting to isolate those individuals, who I remind you actually comprise organizations you might have heard of, such as al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, etc.
If millions of Muslims were being slaughtered in the name of Christ, you would call it a crusade; what name do you have for the ongoing slaughter of Muslims by other Muslims? How do you explain the monstrous nature of jihad? How do you explain those Muslim countries that treat their women like cattle and their children as bombfodder?
You're going to have to do better than "it isn't anyone I know."
Post a Comment
If "whatever crap you think happens because Islam permits it since Islam is so horrible doesn't happen because of Islam. It happens because of individuals who want to commit crimes and make it look okay by saying Islam permitted it" is true, why are "real" Muslims not fighting to isolate those individuals, who I remind you actually comprise organizations you might have heard of, such as al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, etc.
If millions of Muslims were being slaughtered in the name of Christ, you would call it a crusade; what name do you have for the ongoing slaughter of Muslims by other Muslims? How do you explain the monstrous nature of jihad? How do you explain those Muslim countries that treat their women like cattle and their children as bombfodder?
You're going to have to do better than "it isn't anyone I know."
<< Home
