AT ISSUE: Malkin, not Obama, the thoughtless one
By Charles Gueck
Published July 21, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Michelle Malkin's July 17 column "Misunderstood jihadis" called recommendations made in an article written by Sen. Barack Obama following 9/11 on how to stop future terrorist attacks by Muslims as a "self-parody of blind, deaf and dumb Kumbaya liberalism."
It clearly was not so, although I must say that her column could be considered to be a self-parody of blind, deaf and dumb ditto-head conservatism. Obama eloquently defined the 9/11 tragedy as being conceived and implemented by demagogues whose particular brand of violence involved the intent to murder, terrorize and humiliate the American people to promote their terrorist agenda.
Despite Malkin's distorted attempt to discredit Obama's comprehension of one of the most serious threats to the American people, Obama showed an exceptional grasp of the problem presented by Islamic extremists, along with an ability to appropriately conceptualize the situation and to offer us potential solutions. His assessment was accurate then and it remains so today.
As a professional social worker I took particular offense at Malkin's statement that "bleeding heart Obama thinks a master's degree in social work would have convinced poverty-stricken, helpless, ignorant, despairing (terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh) Mohammed to change his mind."
Obama in fact contends that extremists such as Mohammed, and others like him, capitalize on the poverty, ignorance, and despair of their people to advance their own thirst for power and influence.
Obama's understanding of KSM's motives and his methods, like the assessment skills and understanding of professional social workers, offers us all the opportunity to craft solutions, to remove the power that others have over us, and to overcome the barriers that we are faced with in this country today.
Charles Gueck is a resident of Denver.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
July 21, 2008
12:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
What does Michelle Malkin bring to any political discussion except empty rhetoric, angry xenophobia, petulant whining, and some of the worst reasoning skills I've ever seen in print?
Nothing.
July 21, 2008
12:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
Ah, words of wisdom from a Social Worker. Does anyone remember the McMartin Day Care Center debacle? If not perhaps the term "Repressed Memories" might just ring a bell. If not, how about just flat ruining lives because some Social Workers just had to get some notoriety?
By the way, what ever happened to the fad of repressed memories? Do they no longer exist? Are they all cured? Or was it a Social Worker fraud to begin with? Those that can't do, teach. Those that can't teach, become social workers. Likely the most useless profession on this planet, next to dung collectors.
July 21, 2008
2:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shadow writes:
A social worker who moonlights in spare time as an international terrorist expert. It is bad enough that the "bleding heart" concepts of social workers and their ilk can turn a bad situation worse. To actually listen to the drivel and spin of this one on terrorism is unbelievable.
Terrorist are low life scum who pray on innocents. There is absloutely no redeemable value to a terrorist.
As for Charles Gueck contempt and hatred for Michelle Malkin. It looks more like petty envy. Envy of someone who has a more practical sense on a larger variety of issues.
As for solving the issue of what to do with terorists Col. David Hunt has it right. "Kill them where they Sleep".
This can also be applied to child molestors. The ones that social workers think can be rehabilitated. That is untill it is their child who is molested then they screem bloody murder and demand justice.
July 21, 2008
3:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
Clyde: WTF are you talking about!? Seriously.
What in the world does an incident that is what, 2 decades old, have to do with the letter writer or the points made?
Shadow: If you don't understand your enemy, how do you propose to defeat them? "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" is only a workable solution for those too lazy or too stupid to contemplate anything other than their own simplistic view of the world--kind of like many of those posting comments here.
July 21, 2008
3:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
BO writes:
Why anyone listens to the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Maulkin OR Franken is beyond me.
July 21, 2008
6:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
haddock writes:
Wachesa:
You'll understand this. It is the concept of "apophasis". The right-wingers excel at it. Obama is mentioned in association with extremely negative things and then "no association" is claimed. The association has now been made in peoples' minds.
For example, I really question whether the New Yorker cover was just "satire", since the magazine has some pretty brilliant people working for it and is supposed to be liberal. Anyway, apophasis is always present in right-wing arguments on Obama's character and beliefs.
July 21, 2008
6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
Froward69 - "reasoned vigilance"? Oh, you mean "can't we all just get along?" Talking sure stopped the Germans and the Japanses in WWII and the Communists from attacking Korea. You left-wing "intellectuals" have all the answers but no solutions. Your idea of laying down in front of a tank only gets tissue stuck in the treads; a 106mm just below the turret is far more effective in getting their attention.
July 21, 2008
7:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Clyde - Obama and McCain are both clueless on Islam and Jihad. bin Laden, the 9/11 hijackers, the London bombers, the Madrid bombers, the Bali bombers, the Beslan killers, Hezbollah, Iran, al Queda, etc are all driven by the dictates of Islam and Mohammed. Poverty and voting rights, etc. have nothing to do with it. Consider that Muslims (by definition) take Mohammed as "an exc`elent example of conduct" and that Mohammed's main biographer (Sahih Muslim #4294) quotes Mohammed saying this:
"Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur’an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them."
So that's it - convert, submit, or be attacked. The Gospel according to Mohammed. That's the problem, not lack of economic activity. Americans and their leaders need to wake up.
July 21, 2008
7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jim_in_Erie writes:
Professional Social Worker.....yup, they've made all things better all over the place.
Kind of the way "Community Organizers" have made all things better all over the place.
July 21, 2008
7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Wechasa - not sure I understood your comment on the web nanny.
As for the subject: you talk of "the violent elements of the religion" as if these were a small minority or an aberration. Islam **IS** its violent elements. All of Islamic text and history is about using violence to promote Islam. To talk about violent "elements" as if they were the exeption is akin to talking about the virtues of the Mafia, except for its few violent "elements."
Obviously not all Muslims engage in daily, blood-curdling violence. Some may even genuinely abhor that. But the problem is that Muslims are like Nazis: the many passive enablers empower the ultra-violent few. There are no "good" Nazis, only some who were not as pro-actively evil as others. Ditto Muslims, because Islam is the new Nazism. Like Nazis, there might be many who are affable, social, etc, but in the end most will say they are Muslims first, meaning that they subscribe to the Islamic supremacism that would have women in burkas and non-Muslims living as DHIMMIS (look it up).
As for your comment: "Also, one must remember that the whole of "convert, submit, or be attacked" depends very much upon the ability to carry on a real war." This is why Muslims in the US generally keep a low profile. As their numbers increase, they become increasingly violent and seperatist, then as numbers increase further, domineering and violent. See http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ see what is happening in Europe, Thailand, Malmo, Sweden, etc. When Muslims are not strong enough to engage in war, they follow their own "jihad" by other means: intimidation, exploitation of the good will of Western societies and individuals, constantly claiming victim status and playing the "woe is me poor discriminated-against Muslim," using deception etc. (Note: Mohammed's most famous quote is: "War is deception." Why is a so-called "religious" leader talking about how to wage war, rather than condemning its evils????}
Mohammed was a blood thirsty, megalomanic, mysogenic, racist, sadistic, ruthless, pitiless killer. His followers revere him. Do the math on that dynamic.
July 21, 2008
8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
After Malkin's tirade against Rachel Ray and Dunkin Doughnuts, how can we take anything else she says seriously?
July 21, 2008
8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
popo writes:
Right-wing wackos like Malkin is why we are in the fix we find ourselves now.
I suggest Ms. Malkin stay home and bake cookies.
July 21, 2008
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
SlowWalker writes:
"Messiah" complexes aren't limited to conservatives. Plenty of libs have them. Senator Obama is first on that list, methinks ...
July 21, 2008
9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
ComradeMarko writes:
Michelle Malkin is another example of hate speech that President Obama will do away with. Freedom of speech is a great thing but some do not deserve or need it. Get ready for the great leap forward.
Vote Obama '08
July 21, 2008
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"another example of hate speech that President Obama will do away with. Freedom of speech is a great thing but some do not deserve or need it. "
Obama plans to abolish free speech? At least his mindless minions admit it.
July 21, 2008
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
7:54..Booty...very good post!!!
July 21, 2008
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
IronmanCarmichael writes:
Michelle Malkin is Ann Coulter in drag!
July 21, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
T1anda - thanks.
Wechasa - do you believe that that wolf in sheep's clothing is a sheep or a wolf? Islam is an oppressive, inhumane, power-driven, soulless cult of domination **MASQUERADING** as a religion. Islam is Nazism + "we are a religion". That makes it worse than Nazism, which at least never claimed to be a religion. I am not anti religious, I am anti-fascist, pro-human rights and human dignity, and anti-oppression. Hence I am anti-Islam, even though (if you don't count 9/11 etc as "personal") I have never had a personal bad experience with a Muslim (although I doubt future generations will be able to say that). It amazes me that Islam is so successful at propagating the myth that it is a religion in the Abrahamic tradtion in spite of its systemic hatred, violence and oppresion.
Have you visited www.thereligionofpeace.com ?????
July 21, 2008
9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
IronManCarmicheal - MM is cute. AC is Icabod Crane with anorexia. She is real tough on the eyes. Real tough.
July 21, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
This was one of the funniest things I've seen in awhile.
"Obama in fact contends that extremists such as Mohammed, and others like him, capitalize on the poverty, ignorance, and despair of their people to advance their own thirst for power and influence.
Obama's understanding of KSM's motives and his methods..."
Of course BHO understands the motives and methods of KSM and the like, democrats do exactly the same thing. In fact BHO's entire campaign is geared to "capitalize on the poverty, ignorance, and despair of the people to advance his own thirst for power and influence."
July 21, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
jgd writes:
Conservativeslayer
*** Also if you think Obama is a socialist or a liberal, get a clue. The man is a die-hard centrist***
***Try living in the real world, maybe you'll like it.***
A centrist would have a voting record ranking them some where between 40th to 60th on liberal issues. As a US Senator Obama has been rank from the 1st to the 16th with the most liberal voting record. How can you possibly call him a centrist? He is a die hard liberal bordering on being a true socialist.
July 21, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Mike in Hartsel; We never did negotiate on a serious level with the Germans or Japanese. Where do you get this stuff. Sure some memo's were sent here and there and a couple token envoys were sent, but serious negotiations between leaders. Never happened.
July 21, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jeff writes:
Many of the above comments true, i.e., given that one of Malkin's most public crusades was exposing Rachel Ray as a sleeper-cell terrorist, HOW ON EARTH could anyone take her seriously!?
Ironman, I have a slightly different take:
Malkin is just a female version of Ann Coulter.
July 21, 2008
11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
jgd writes:
Conservativeslayer
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/...
July 21, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
HumanBeans writes:
Michelle Malkin is HOT!
July 21, 2008
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
MM taught me to make drive by insults, always use some one elses words.
Some libs say MM is a clone gone wrong of Ann Coulter, and she should stand her ground when she makes absurd comments.
See, I never insulted her for real.
Please give me a link on the Rachel Ray comments. Please!
July 21, 2008
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
jgd writes:
Conservativeslayer
"Hillary Clinton was found to be tied as the 16th most liberal senator, after having placed 32nd the previous year. National Journal uses 99 "key Senate votes" to determine its ratings. One of the key "conservative" votes Clinton cast was to designate the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization."
They used 99 "key Senate votes", are you saying the Senate voted on 99 issues on one day? There is a list of the issues that were voted on had you followed the link. I will be happy to copy that list for you but you already know your comment is just BS.
You liberal/socialist are always trying to defend your liberal/socialist programs yet seem to get upset and embarrassed when someone one points out your liberal/socialist positions. Why is that?
July 21, 2008
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
froward69 (6:34 post)-
Substituting the liberals' approach to environmentalism for your take on conservatives' approach to terrorism, you are slamming yourself and your own cause just as much as you are the conservatives.
July 21, 2008
1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Okay I saw the ad. Now let us all start wearing that awful scarf to show support for RR and the stylist who picked this rag for the shoot.
Or wear the scarf to poke MM in the eye.
July 21, 2008
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Typical leftist morons... They can't reasonably attack the message so they attack the messenger.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
July 21, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Islam is stuck in a time bubble, similar to where the Israelites were in the most violent time of the Old Testament. Line them up, quotations for quotations about killing, smiting, dashing the little babies heads on rocks with the Quran and you will see the Muslim religion needs a reformation.
That reforming will have to come from within, the way it did with the coming of Christianity and a kinder, gentler religion.
Turn the other cheek is long overdue in Islam, but I see no way for it to happen, since the Muslims are not waiting for a Messiah.
This religion must grow up, because there is no chance of a reforming, kind, person showing up to change the minds of the, usually young, angry men, into something better.
We need to take advantage of the fractured nature of Islam right now. It is splintered between sects.
July 21, 2008
2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Me2; Have you ever read the Old Testament? Pretty violent and oppressive stuff. Old Testament believers just commit their violence in a little bit more clandestine way, but there is no difference really between war mongering Muslims and war mongering Christians and Jews. Christians and Jews just have bigger better and more expensive impliments of war and can therefore remove themselves from the violent acts they perpetrate, (in other words kill from a distance.) Radical Muslim violence may seem more barbaric, but if they had the same tools western armies did, it would be different. Just think if they had Apache helicopters. Do you really think you would see as many suicide bombers? I think not. So, they resort to something a little more primative. In the end it all has the same effect. There are dead people everywhere.
July 21, 2008
2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
raysmom writes:
Wow. The Kool-Aid has been flowing freely today, I take it. Do any of you Obama supporters own a small business? Or have you paid for 10 years of education on your own only to have 55% of what you earn go to 'the govmint", so that you can't expand business and help local wealth grow or save much for your own future? Do you volunteer in your community? Create jobs? Give to charities? Read anything other than Huffingtonpost.com? If so, good for you, but I don't understand how you can come to the conclusions you do. I'll bet you all know evil conservatives and LIKE them- you just don't know they're "neo-cons"! What is a "neo-con", anyway? Either you are, or you aren't, a conservative. And not all conservatives have exactly the same take on all the issues, you know. That's really prejudiced thinking. Many of my friends are liberal Dems- I am a conservative Dem and really very conservative even for that, but we don't vilify each other- that's for the weak-minded. Have some more sour grapes- it really brings out your best side, those of you who spew such hatred for conservatives. I think "enlightenment" by liberal definition and example on this thread is not something to admire.
July 21, 2008
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
SheikYurBooty writes: Islam is an oppressive, inhumane, power-driven, soulless cult of domination **MASQUERADING** as a religion. Islam is Nazism + "we are a religion". That makes it worse than Nazism, which at least never claimed to be a religion"
I agree with you on Islam, however the National Socialists did attempt to self deify...
"The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.
"The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably...the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800...
"The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.
"The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany...'"
"On the altars there must be nothing but 'Mein Kampf' (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.
"On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels...and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika."
Martin Bormann.
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, p. 240
Conservativeslayer writes: I don't fear the muslim fundamentalist, as much as I fear the Christian fundies in this country. The Christian fundies are the true menaces to our freedoms in this country."
Hitler and bin Laden would be so proud...
July 21, 2008
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Oh and BTW 'Mein Kampf' is one of the bestselling "Western" books allowed in the Middle East...
July 21, 2008
3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
ComradeMarko writes:
William L. Shirer's Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich?
Have you read anything that is LESS than 50 years old?
July 21, 2008
3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Has Martin Bormann said anything in the last 50 years?
July 21, 2008
3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Hazardous, nice way to attack Conservativeslayer. You can't or won't refute his/her arguments so you compare him/her to Hitler. There was a conservative who once stated "Anyone who mentions Hitler loses." You lost, game over. Please step onto the trapdoor.
Fundamentalisms -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. -- are a threat to free thinking. Are a threat to reasoned discourse. Christian fundamentalism in that regard is no different. It's just that the worst offenders are (so far) blocked from doing anything serious because a) the truly die-hard ones are still a relative minority, and b) our democratic and secular institutions are still functioning. There are Christian Reconstructionists who want to remake the US into a Christian Republic, with the Bible (especially all those nasty laws in Leviticus) as the Supreme Law of the Land and only "true Christians" as judges and political leaders. They, of course, will decide who a true Christian is.
me2, I'm glad you saw the info about Michelle Malkin and the Dunkin Donuts spokeswoman. I think the idea of Dunkin Donuts being a terrorist threat is hilarious. Has MM already physcally donated her brain to science in advance of her death? It sure seems like it, 'cuz she's clueless.
July 21, 2008
4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
H_T - Nazism never claimed to be based onthe words or inspiration of a deity. Just as the Bolscheviks saw a threat in the traditional churches, so to did the Nazis. Being anti-church or seeing the church as a competitor did not make Nazism a religion. Mohammed specifically asserted that he was a prophet, and worse, the LAST prophet - i.e. no one could come later and undo his hatred and mind control. The whole world sees Islam as the religion it asserts itself to be, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with bettering humanity or life on Earth, but only in propagating itself like the cancer that it is.
July 21, 2008
5 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
SYB, that is why I used the term Self Deify. The point is that the National Socialists, Islam and apparently the American left share the same views on Christianity.
peterpi writes: Hazardous, nice way to attack Conservativeslayer. You can't or won't refute his/her arguments so you compare him/her to Hitler. There was a conservative who once stated "Anyone who mentions Hitler loses." You lost, game over. Please step onto the trapdoor."
Wow, some mystery conservative deemed my argument invalid before I made it? The truth is you leftists have made an industry of sweeping Hitler under the rug so that people can't learn that he was every day and in every way a socialist. It's fine however if you compare Bush to Hitler with no context.
I guess they share the same views on freedom of speech and what to do with dissenting voices... Trapdoor, gas chamber, chopping block...
July 21, 2008
5:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Spot on Jimminy.
July 21, 2008
5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Chuckles, I am not willing to trade my Christianity for your Fascism...
July 21, 2008
6:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
Charles-
Even if every Christian gave up their faith, Radical Islam would still not be satisfied.
Why cant you understand that?
July 21, 2008
8:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
OK so I should have used the broader term, Socialism...
July 21, 2008
8:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Actually Marx was pretty vocal about how people should be treated...
"As for slavery, there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring explanation is the good side of slavery. I do not mean indirect slavery, the slavery of proletariat; I mean direct slavery, the slavery of the Blacks in Surinam, in Brazil, in the southern regions of North America. Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. … Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance."
- Karl Marx
(Letter to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov, December 28, 1846)
"… the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."
- Karl Marx
("The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, November 7, 1848)
Change we can believe in...
July 21, 2008
9:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
thefastestgun writes:
What does Michelle Malkin bring to any political discussion except empty rhetoric, angry xenophobia, petulant whining, and some of the worst reasoning skills I've ever seen in print?
how about the truth? you just are too blind to see it.
July 21, 2008
9:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
thefastestgun writes:
BO[body odor writes:
Why anyone listens to the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Maulkin OR Franken is beyond me.
i have no doubt whatsoever is is beyond you, as well as many other things like logic and reason are beyond you.
July 21, 2008
9:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
thefastestgun writes:
Conservativeslayer writes:
@SheikYurBooty- YAWN!!!! Your islamo-phobia is so boring. Please spare us from having to read your demented paranoid ramblings. I think you're rants would be better posted on Powerline or freerepublic. You'd probably get a better reception too. Lots of retards on those blogs, just like you.
don't miss the last flight to Iran, I know you want to be there for the stoning deaths of the 9 adulterers. nice religion, can't see how stoning to death people compares to a short prayer before school. but i've no doubt you'll come up with some preposterous explanation.
July 21, 2008
9:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
thefastestgun writes:
Charles_B writes:
Hazardous_T:
Could you provide some evidence for your contention that I am "fascist"?
You slit the throats of puppies and drink their blood.
See how easy to play make-believe?
he was incorrect, fascist should have read "nazi"
July 21, 2008
9:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Conservativeslayer and the guy after him.(her). I did not say Christianity good, Islam Bad, or the other way around.
I said they are both violent religions, the Old Testament one, BC, and the Koran.
Did I say splintered into thousands of groups? Islam is splintered between a few groups, and the more modern ones in Indonesia. This we could use.
I would bet there are peaceful Muslims and violent Christians, like the ones that threatened to kill a boy back East who took a wafer out of the Catholic mass.
He held the wafer hostage, and got real, honest death threats. Now what does this mean?
It means that religion makes people crazy, some crazier than others.
July 22, 2008
8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
groups like the taliban aren't so good...whether they be american or middle eastern.
get religion out of politics.
btw...malkin is bad for your world view.
don't be a malkin.
July 22, 2008
12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
In 1983, Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize for Literature, gave an address in London in which he attempted to explain why so much evil had befallen his people:
Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."
Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."
July 22, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Becca00, your first post is right on. Everytime I read a Malkin column I feel like I should be getting in a fight with someone--not for any particular reason, but because that's presumably how I'm supposed to respond to one of her columns. What do we call people who purposely incite anger? On the internet, we call them trolls. Back on the block, they would be bad neighbors. When members of the press do this, I don't know what to say.
July 22, 2008
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Darwinism is the deadliest religion in history...
July 22, 2008
12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
It's not a religion. It's a scientific theory.
July 22, 2008
12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
Haz-T, so because the Russian God felt neglected and forgotten, it allowed 60 million people to die? That Russian God sounds pretty vengeful and heavy-handed.
July 22, 2008
3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Wechasa, hi there. I have learned something here. It used to be easy to spot religions, they had all those funny looking tax free buildings. Now, however, posters need to point out all the new "religions" such as Liberalism, Feminism, Humanism, Darwinism, and the newest Global Warming.
It seems that all a new religion needs is people to believe in something and promote the idea with fervor. Bumper stickers and t-shirts help because that brings in icons. True New Believers have slogans and we are even told who their Gods are i.e. Gore, Abortion On Demand, Primordial Ooze, Money and such.
This ability to root out new faiths is so prevalent and so fervent in its own way that I am tempted to call it a religion.
July 22, 2008
4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Some have the mistaken notion that faith and religion are linked inseparably with the confession of a supreme being, but many exercise faith in self and other human beings--to the exclusion of the divine. This, too, is religion. Whatever serves as one's basic system of beliefs about his or her place and role in the universe is certainly a faith, a religion.
July 22, 2008
4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Charles_B writes: Perhaps, you're right. So let's undermine those religions that are "faith based" (and therefore irrational) in favor of those that are "reality based" (for which there is observable evidence).
The "reality based" (for which there is observable evidence) of the Darwinian religion manifests itself in the form of Marx/Engles, Lenin, Stalin/Trotsky, Hitler/Rohm, Mao/Ho Chi Mihn
Castro/Che, Pol Pot, and on and on...
"During my time of trial, these last few weeks, I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book of Natural Selection. Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view." Karl Marx...
Yep there is plenty of observable evidence of what faith in Darwin can bring to society...
July 22, 2008
5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
I have it on good authority that Karl Marx drank milk. So.....with this fact added to his love of Darwin, we should all ban milk from our diets.
I hear, but it is just a rumor, the K. Marx liked Shaespere too.
July 22, 2008
6:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
me2 writes:
I have it on good authority that Karl Marx drank milk. So.....with this fact added to his love of Darwin, we should all ban milk from our diets.
Par for the course... When a lefty loses a logical argument they whip out absurd analogies...
July 22, 2008
7:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
IronmanCarmichael writes:
Sheik:
You may have a point. Okay: Michelle Malkin is Sean Hannity in drag. (Ann Coulter is Michael Savage in drag.)
Jimminy:
(ref. 5:11 post)
I can't imagine "carriers" of any "deadly plague" celebrating its transmission with a fraction of the glee with which you clearly celebrate the sickness you display by a statement like that.
July 23, 2008
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Jimminy, you mock science by insinuating that Darwinism (a theory) is, like religion, faith-based. It's not. You should know this.
July 23, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
IronmanCarmichael writes:
Well, Jimminy, who can argue with a source as objective and open-minded as Uno? Assuming the video actually exists, I can only say it would be hard to find footage of people not enjoying consensual oral sex. It's also highly doubtful that anyone would deny that AIDS is a deadly virus (least of all the relatives of those whose names appear on the AIDS quilt), although I imagine the only people actually celebrating its transmission are homophobes who wish all gay people would die.
If I looked around a little, I bet I could find quite a lot of video footage of people enjoying smoking. Are they "celebrating" the transmission of cancer? How about overweight people chowing down on those carbs celebrating heart disease? Why, I wouldn't be surprised if there were even one or two reels extant of--just imagine--heterosexuals engaging in oral sex.
As for the ferrous element remark, it seems that self-association with a Disney cricket leads not only to an impaired sense of reality but a tendency to think in simplistic and rather childish stereotypes. But that's no news to anyone who's read your posts.
July 23, 2008
1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
Jimminy, you called Darwinism dogma--a concept often tied to religion--and in the same paragraph referred to faith. Sounds like a critique of science to me. Some adherents to the theory of Darwin may be dogmatic, but that does not invalidate the theory--which is only so good as the emperical evidence that supports it.
You also denigrate Marx for some unknown reason. Like it or not, agree with him or not (and most people in this country don't), he is one of the great intellectuals of western history. He too developed a theory--as to why capitalism wasn't all a bed of roses. As with Darwin, his theory is only so good as it stands the test of time. I'm not aware of Guevara having developed any widely acknowledged theories but naming a bunch of "bad" guys or the use of loaded terms or perjorative labels is often used as a substitute for argument.
July 23, 2008
5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
IronmanCarmichael writes:
Jimminy,
Talk about the conscience of the willful child, specifically the child's insecurity that comes from not only the unknown and the misunderstood but the realization that not everybody loves him, and the sad, mistaken notion that anyone who disagrees does so simply out of meanness or hatred. Your logic is touchingly childish, too: you insult me with the "ferrous element" remark and then accuse me of being mad at you when I respond to it.
But I admit I am incredulous--nothing personal--about your stereotyping of AIDS as a "gay plague" that its victims "celebrate the transmission of" any more than any other type of human necessarily "celebrates" the transmission or invitation of an illness caused by a particular activity or behavior. None of which has much to do with Michelle Malkin (except perhaps that she probably thinks AIDS is a "gay disease," too).
Gotta go. If you want the last word, knock yourself out.