Posts
CARTOON JIHAD: THE MAP
By
Michelle Malkin February 06, 2006 08:36 PM The Face of Muhammed blog has created an interesting map of the Cartoon Jihad, with color coding indicating where various countries stand on the conflict (neutral/dhimmi, violence/boycotts, acts of war, defenders of free speech):
http://michellemalkin.com
19/2: The Cartoon Clash: Who defends freedom - and who opposes it?
50 countries have printed the cartoons. Mozambique & Uruguay. Bosnia. Russie prints then shuts down newspaper. Islam responds to free speech by killing children, priests and burning churches in Nigeria.
Read comments for more info. Please post country updates only. posted by sbrant at 4:26 AM
http://face-of-muhammed
.
12 comments:
;)
Y tu tambien, amiga.
I somehow missed the point. Please don't explain.
Regarding Mohtoons as a new artistic genre. You ain't seen nothing yet.
There's an Islamoskeptic Guy in Holland called Gregorius Neckshot who is about to publish a book of drawings of the Prophet (pbuh - Pedophile with Bomb Upon Head) violating and deflowering my sweet young mistress.
The truth will out. Go for it Gregorius (Latin - Good Shepherd?)
As for The Pervert, it were better that he tied a millstone around his neck and cast himself into the deepest ocean than he should defile such innocence.
- Aisha's lost doll
Please keep us apprised of the new book.
Sick and wrong said:
"Check out this Mohammed cartoon:
http://sickandwrong.blaringfoghorn.com
It offers a reasonable explanation for all the anger in the MUslim world."
No, that doesn't explain any anger. That is just a humourous cartoon, Of course Mahuumud was a female pig. There is no doubt of that and it is funny.
No, to get an expanation of Islamic anger , you have to understand the profile of spoiled brats with supersize egos and teeey eeny weenies an understand people with glass fragile self-esteem.
To properly understand Islamic anger, you need to go study FBI profiles of murderers and Serial killers that are in institutions for the criminally insane .
Then you can understand them.
..
Get this idiot people who are blaming the cartoons.
Cartoons are just cartoons. they are non-sentient.
People are responsible for themsleves and how they react
People DECIDE to be ANGRY and INTOLERANT and HOMICIDAL.
Peoepl are different from PIGS in that they can be responsible for how they act and feel.
So that explains Islamic anger in that it is obvious Islamics are pigs and not people.
There aren't any laws about survival. History is about creating and changing laws.
Those cultures are responsible for the protection of their own children. They condemn and destroy their own children, not I.
..
War is total, always has been always will be.
Tokyo was firebombed.
Dresden was firebombed.
The pilots had had the armour removed to carry more bombs.
Sherman marched to the sea and destroyed everything to finally decimate the south.
War is total.
With sacrifice goes commitment.
To falter is to die. Peace is the other sides responsibility to not be an enemy, after that it is no longer a decision.
Max writes that there aren't any laws about survival, no Positive or man-made law, there being only the Natural law of who lives and who dies.
In the West we make a terrible mistake in personifying nature, attributing to nature the feelings and mind of personhood that nature is not any part of. It is undeniable that there is a de facto natural law of survival, obvious and clear. Within that natural state of survival there is Humanness. That is the beginning of the decisive difference between the Human animal and all other life: that we are endowed with Will.
I write Will, but one might use choice. We can make choices without reason or rationality. We can examine of feelings through feelings and act accordingly; but it is the examination that makes us Human.
Those of us who privilege Reason over feeling rely on choices that reflect universality over particularity. If it's right for me, it must be right for you; conversely, if it's right for you it must be right for me and all others; therfore, I must act in such a way that if others were to act in the same way things will be of less harm to others than were I to act differently. To understand what is to the good, we examine possibilities rationally. Then we choose the better course that is of least harm to others and to the greater benefit to the many.
We don't make our choices based on thin air: we rely on lawfulness and justice. those concepts float on the foundations of intuition, reason, tradition, benefit, and sometimes on revelation. We make up law as we go along, the Postive law, and try to balance it with the Natural law of experience; and to make it universally valid, we add to that the authority of Revelation, law given to moral people by the hihgher authority of God, or your choice of term. but regardless of what our laws are they don't come from private whims. Law is social. So too is war.
In war man gives up his privacy for an over-arching publicity. I can't think of anything more social. And though it rests on the foundation of Nature, war is lawful. There are rules and ways of war, and that entails choices in how we wage it. Anything else isn't war but riot and rampage.
War is tempered. We arrive at our course in war through the examination of the least harm to ourselves for the greatest benefit. But, we must also examine the flip-side: how would we wish and expect our enemies to conduct war agaisnt us? They, being our enemies, don't follow our rules, and we cannot expect them to. We msut though judge ourseves as the vanquished will: if we fight like they do, then we will have abandoned our principles and will have been our enemies. So, we rely on the state of nature that demands that we win to survive, but that we temper our war with choice, the choice of rules based on Reason, Revelation, and universal justice. We have some idea of what these things mean. We have our Bibles, St. Augustine's works, Grotius's works, the works of Sun Tsu and von Clausewitz. We aren't shooting in the dark.
We know already the difference between just and unjust war, which is why we are not criminals or madmen. We have codes we follow. We agree before hand to follow our own codes. Then we fight. If they do what I do, would this be moral in war? We answer not to our enemies but to ourselves. We have to live with ourselves afterward. We have to be temperate in our wars to be moral in our victory. And yes, we must also win.
We can win war by total war and extermination of our enemies. That would be a net loss. We will have done too much to the point that we will have lost our selves in our victory.
Having argued for reason and temper in war, let me also acknowledge that war is violence and that it is so for a rational reason. War, in my opinion, is neither to exerminate our enemies nor to neutralise their threat. War is to assimilate our enemies into our own group.
War isn't violence for the sake of killing. The violence of killing in war is the violence of rejuvenation, of "making young again." War is the male version of giving birth. War is "the birth of a nation."
War isn't effectively to obliterate the matrix: war is to rejuvenate by the patrix. One must reason in advance how deeply to penetrate the matrix to ensure the impression of the patrix is permanent and beneficial to the new nation. Too little is rape, too much is murder. To make a new nation from the combination of the two forces is to make a new, rejuvenated entity.
We have to look carefully at why we go to war and against whom. Is the matrix worth our sacrifices or is it better to leave the matrix to whither of its own?
We can look at the Islamic world as not worth our struggle. We can, maybe we will, embargo the Islamic world nd watch theem die within a month from starvation. Or we can look upon the Islamic world as a sorce of children to repopulate our dismissed West. Muslim women represent the entirity of the world's ethnic variety. Rather than importing Muslims to the West we might reconsider our approach to that of taking the West to the world. If we were to do so, then all of the world would be American in the mind. That would be a net gain.
The laws of nature argue for the latter, the propagation of our own and the incorporation of the others into our selves as opposed to their extermination.
Or so I think, anyway. I leave the next round to our readers.
"We can win war by total war and extermination of our enemies. That would be a net loss. We will have done too much to the point that we will have lost our selves in our victory." -dag
We lose the parts of our selves that we don't want. We waged and won total war in WW2 There is nothing the enemy had for which we can be nostalgic.
War writes the laws of humanity. The victor write the new laws. If Western Society is not tough enough to deal with the Islamics then they will write the new laws of History .
Survival dictates to take care of the self the home and the home groups first, If any person or group outside of the protective circle engages in acts that bring destruction upon themselves then no one can help them. They must be abandoned to their own fate rather than endanger the primary group.. It violates the first law of survival to compromise the home group.So no one can be responsible for even the innocent of another culture in total war.
This is a big difference what you (DAg) can live with and what others can and do live with.
The enemy has no trouble living with your extinction and no trouble using your guilt or lack of resolution or lack of ruthlessness against you.
I didn't mean no law , I meant no set law. From inside an established culture, law appears set.
From the viewpoint of judges they know law is an extension of power and constantly in flux. Your idea of "humanness" is liberal guilt and liberal wishy washiness. This concept of"humanity " is from the unbloodied experience of tough choices. It is the lesson forced upon permissive liberals again and again as they learn that life does not tolerate failure of the will and evil thrives on self-doubt.
Ruthless is a quality for good as well as evil.
You should learn what humanity is from those who have suffered from it and survived it such as survivors of the Holocaust.
Basically your idea of "law" will not survive the test of history and the conflict of war.
Today we hear much complaints about "abuses" of our troops in the war upon our enemies. This is the fault of modern computerized communication. I am in total support of shooting all the media reporters from both sides using summary executions and air strikes.
If the modern media had been extant in WW2 ,we would be still fighting Hitler. Any combat veteran can tell you our troops did a billion times more worse abuses , killings and tortures in WW2 an the bottom line is it brought us Victory and Victory never gave a damn about "injustice" and neither did the relieved victorious population.
Those "abuses" that the troops do are what won our freedoms in WW2. That is the nature of war and warriors and how humans fight in battle. If civilians cannot stand it then they should look away and enjoy their cappuccinos while others fight and die for them.
There is only one primary by definition. The primary rule of war is either survival or victory. It might be both at once but not necessarily so. We can lose by winning, as the Mongols did in China; or lose by surviving without triumph, as we see in Serbia today. The rules change according to the chances of victory, and that depends on Will.
But Max brings up the point of ruthlessness, and that we should look at clearly if briefly.
What is our goal in war? If we set out to survive, then we will likely lose, not having the will to win. If we set out to win, then we have to ask what it is we expect from our victory. A struggle without a goal is a loss. The effort is a constant loss with no winning ever.
Thus, to have a goal, to expend for the sake of a future gain, and to win that evnetual gain is to win rightly. Anything that expends more energy than we gain in the end is a loss. To play at war and to win anyway is still to lose. We won the war in Iraq, sort of. but since then we have lost because we didn't actually beat our eneies to the point at which we are acknowledged by our enemies as superiour. We don't see ourselves as triumphant, nor does anyone else. Hence, we are losing if not lost. It stems from a lack of clarity. We don't have the will to win because we don't value winning. We seem not to have a goal. So any "ruthlessness" is merely gratuitious acts interprsonal violence. If we don't intend to win decisively, then we lose and cannot win no matter how ruthless we are. Our ruthlessness is in fact a loss. Like chess, if we merely kill all the other pieces and come to a stalemate, then we haven't won. when we play at war and don't win, we have squandered our energy, that being people and resources.
The point is that advantageous ruthlessness isn't tactical. I've seen the work of death squads in Central America, and they are ruthless. But they are not winners. They lose. On the other hand, I've seen survivors in South America and the Balkans who lost in spite of all the advantages of men and training and materiel because they had no desire to win, only a desrie to survive. I've seen winners in the Middle Eat win a reprieve but not win a lasting peace because though they are tactically ruthless they are not strategically so.
The point is that too much is as bad as too little. Either approach leads to defeat in the long term if not immediately.
Ruthlessness is not a matter of making the enemy suffer but of accepting ones own suffering for the winning end at which time one has more than one loses.
If we don't know what we want from a struggle, then we shouldn't venture into it. If we do, then we must look at the balance to see if we gain more than we lose. If we understand that we will gain, then we cannot quit in the middle or pretend we've won when in effect we have not. We have to be ruthless with ourselves first off.
As an aside I might ask that one read the Melian Dialogue and the biography of William Walker in the archives here. It's been my experience that war is a mental activity primarily, and secondarily a physical one. I hope that will make clear the difference between rational violence and sentimentality. The two are two and not the same.
Yeah well we can win just by winning like we did in WW2.
..........
Since you are confused about what winning and survival are then God help you, because no one else can.
..
You have the intrinsic liberal defect of not accepting the existence of violence. Violence exists . It is not "good" or "bad", it is used for good or Evil. all those liberals that reject the use of violence win the Darwin Award and die out.
Stalin and Mao's death squads were clearly winners. Your liberal view of the world wears blinders. Liberals cannot see reality because they don't have the will to see the truth of human nature.
"The point is that too much is as bad as too little. Either approach leads to defeat in the long term if not immediately."
Liberal irresolute bullshit. The truth is that lack of committment leads to nothing. Only commitment can lead to life . Non committment leads to death.
Ruthlessnes means full commitment to success. All those cultures that have not been ruthless lie buried in the sands of history.
..
Your position is the liberal permissive disease, a lack of experience of real life, real death, real terror, real suffering and the Liberal tries to deal with it without really dealing with it.
Teh wishy washy raod which is NOT humane or Human but affirming NOTHING.
...
Spielberg's Munich is a charade and a lie.
The Mossad is stonger than that and is the truth of survivalist experience.
It is a truth that the spoiled permissive middle unblooded middle class culture of North America has yet to learn and without learning will perish.
So we have dissent amoungst the revolutionaries.
Study your history DAG.Your guys were the first to get axed in both the Chinese and Russian revolutions. Youse guys were like Chihuahuas in the wolf pack.
Post a Comment