Article

2006-05-24 Terror Networks

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Brett 2006-05-24 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Prophet of Doom is a fabulous study. I may have preferred a tad less of gratuitious Christian theology, but I did not write the stuff, Craig Winn did, hence he deserves some slack in that regard. Zizzer & Zazz--two thumbs up.

Posted by zazz 2006-05-24 04:25|| 2006-05-24 04:25|| Front Page Top

#2 Excellent comments by the site boss and owner, as always. the point about islam essentially being an arab cultural war machine is spot on.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-05-24 07:58|| 2006-05-24 07:58|| Front Page Top

#3 It is what it is.

GE 43:32 And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.
GE 46:34 That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.
EX 8:26 And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the LORD our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?

Just like it was in the end, was it like in the big inning.

Posted by newc">newc 2006-05-24 08:11|| 2006-05-24 08:11|| Front Page Top

#4 Let's compare the Ten Comandments with the Five Pillars of Islam.

Here are the five pillars

1) The Sayada: affirming there is only one God and Muhammad is DA Man

2) Praying or more exactly telling five times a day that Muhammad is the greatest and more genial
men who ever exixted

3) Fasting for Ramadan. Ramadan was a sacred month for Arabs well before Islam, one where they
didn't make war. So Arabs travelled unarmed during this month and it was by attacking an unarmed group of merchants during Ramadan trhat Muslims got their firsyt victory and their first booty (20% of it went into Muhammad's pocket BTW)
Anyway there is nothing specially positive in fasting

4) the Hadj. Have all people of Arabia (and later from many other places some of them much poorer) leave their hard earned money into the hands of Meccans (Muhamlmad was a Meccan)

5) Charity. This is the only thing who could be thought as positive. But this charity is only towards Muslims and it is limited to 3% of revenue (before or after taxes and professional expenses?) provided you can afford it. Nothing in common with what Christ says about charity. It is more like a tax on the rich.

And voilà, that is all in the five pillars there is nothing like the "Thou shall not killé, "Thou shall not steal" or other commandments who aim to make men better or at least get them better together. I have met Muslims (who BTW were not wahabists) who are good people but it is certainly not the five pillars who made them good.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-05-24 08:18|| 2006-05-24 08:18|| Front Page Top

#5 The woman quoted in the text says "I acknowledge that he was a delusional illiterate power hungry man"

Muhammad was not illiterate. He or his followers created this myth in order to accentuate the "miracle" of him being dictated the Koran by an Angel and aparently writing it despite being illiterate. But in the first part of his life he ran the business of his first wife. This woman was not a mere shopkeeper but appanetly engaged in overseas commerce. It would have been impossible for an illiterate man to manage a business of this size and complexity.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-05-24 08:27|| 2006-05-24 08:27|| Front Page Top

#6 JFM, excellent comparison between the 'five pillars' and the Ten Commandments. A careful analysis of the Ten Commandments reveals just how comprehensive they are. The first five deal with man's obligations to God, and the last 5 deal with man's obligation to man. If I meet my obligations to both God and man, what else is there? In contrast, the 'five pillars' deal almost entirely with the idea that God must be 'appeased' by outward religiosity. Not a peep on our obligations to our fellow man, unless you count the 'charity' clause for muslims only.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-05-24 09:11|| 2006-05-24 09:11|| Front Page Top

#7 This is ridiculous.

I hate Islamofascists as much as anyone

but you can't compare a religion to a purely secular political movement and say because it is 'a lie' it will come crashing down.

Since when has ANY religion had to be empirically proveable truth?

That is the whole essence of religion: all religions. They are based on beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven.

They are all 'true' to their believers who suspend disbelief no matter how ridiculous the premise nor how many laws of physics it breaks. Whether it is a rainbow serpent or a Goddess whose evil son tears her to bits and whose good son sews her back together then has babies with her, whether it's dancing Shiva or a virgin who 'miraculously' gives birth, to the poor misguied scientologists.

And no religion ANYWHERE at any time has had a mass revelation where all of them at once 'woke up' and decided atheism was for them.

No.

Religions gradually lose touch with their flocks or people convert from one to another but the need to believe in magic is hardwired into the human brain and the cultural reinforcement prevents 'waking up' no matter how damaging the religion.

no, I'm afraid Moderate Muslims are our allies and secularising Islam is our only hope for victory.

Keep the good bits of the religion - and there are some, marginalise those that cling to the bad bits and sooner or later you'll civilise them.

unfortunately to get rid of the fascist elements you may need to nuke Mecca, Medina and Riyadh. But the rest of the billion Muslims will be all right once you root out the rads.

Posted by anon1 2006-05-24 09:16|| 2006-05-24 09:16|| Front Page Top

#8 anon1, your hostility to religion aside, (dismising those who believe in the virgin birth as loons, for example) I think you missed my point. Islam, if widely practiced, does not make the world a better place. However, a man who believes in God but also believes in helping his fellow man does make the world a better place. Consequently, an adherent to the Ten Commandments also makes the world a better place.

At no time was the argument advanced that Christianity or Judaism was "empirical truth", although, now that you mention it, I do believe the Bible.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-05-24 09:50|| 2006-05-24 09:50|| Front Page Top

#9 The Money Quote:

The psychopath narcissist does not understand love. He understands fear. Islam is based on fear.

That about sums it up. The islamic leaders are psychpaths. They are unable to feel empathy, they are not wired for it. You cannot reason with them. You have to use power, fear, and ridicule. Cartoons are a good a weapon as anything, maybe a wee warning box in the corner to satisfy the lawyers?

And remember, "Moderate Muslims" are not Good Muslims, in the eyes of the clerics.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2006-05-24 10:25|| 2006-05-24 10:25|| Front Page Top

#10 I don't think people leave religion for atheism. It's a belief that there is no god. Rather, I think agnosticism is a more natural progression -- not knowing, and usually not caring if there's a God. Sometimes they'll call the agnosticism something else, like Unitarianism or Episcopalianism or Reformed Judaism if they're gregarious folk who like getting together for a few hours on a weekend.

I enjoy reading the Old Testament, but I read it as history, and I read it in the context of the time and place, keeping in mind that the ancients didn't write history the way we do. Herodotus is also the "father of lies." The same sorts of miraculous happenings show up in the tales of other peoples, and occasionally the same ones. The Babylonians and the Persians had lots of convergences, the Egyptians somewhat fewer.

There was a "King David" who ruled at Ebla, in Syria, 1500 years before King David ruled in Jerusalem -- and they were two different real people. Noah didn't meet Gilgamesh in the Old Testament, but he seems to be the same as Utu-Napishtim, who did. I'm guessing both were mythical, but if I'm ever in Abu Dhabi I'm going to check the phonebook to make sure (unlike Noah, Utu-Napishtim achieved immortality).

The Koran doesn't have the same historical value as the Old Testament (or for that matter the New Testament, which is kind of a 100 year snapshot into that end of the Roman Empire.) But its weakness is what the author lays out as the weaknesses of Islam. It's a tool for building empire, not for guiding humanity to the Pearly Gates, assuming God does take an interest in the affairs of men.

I don't think that God eats adoration. I can't conceive of a mentality capable of creating the universe that requires periodic head bonkings from men, whether Mo had to split the moon and fly off to argue with him about it or not.

Posted by Fred 2006-05-24 10:53|| 2006-05-24 10:53|| Front Page Top

#11
In contrast, the 'five pillars' deal almost entirely with the idea that God must be 'appeased' by outward religiosity.

Not merely that: three of the five pillars either aim to boot Muhammad's ego or to make him (and his successors) richer. Contrast this with Judaism (afaik neither Moses or any other Prophet or Patriarch is mentionned in Judaic prayers) or Chritianism (while the belief in Jesus divinity is the core of Christainity, his name is not present in the "Our Father" or Pater Noster ie the main Christain prayer and the only prayer created by Jesus himself.

Not a peep on our obligations to our fellow man, unless you count the 'charity' clause for muslims only.

And even that charity doesn't ring as something coming from heart and from compassion for the fellow man. 3% of revenue. Fixed. And then you are free of obligation.

Contrast that with Jesus scolding the Phariseans because they had given their excess money and they had tried to get publicity and status of their charity. Jesus praised the poor woman who had donated a small sum but it was money she really neded. Remember also Christs's requirement for secrecy when practicing charity: Christianism doesn't place a cap (or a floor) on how much you should doante, it must come from heart (that is why he scolds Phariseans) and you must not try to get a benefit (through publicity) from it. It must pure unadulterated charity born from compassion.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-05-24 11:04|| 2006-05-24 11:04|| Front Page Top

#12 My $.02 - I concur a lot w/Fred though I tend to call my progression from organized religion and being a Catholic to being more with what one I guess would call a Deist, more in the spirit of Washington, Jefferson, et al. I believe in God - just not half the shit that's been written about the guy by some asshole w/an ajenda to control other dumb assholes. I don't believe in any revealed regional religions, or in walking on water, virgin births, water to wine, the substitutional theory for atonement, or any other miracles ascribed to "sex up" the religion - I think the author summed it up perfectly. As far as I'm concerned just the contemplation of the universe and earth itself is enough for me to believe in a higher power. Take away the "miracle" stuff and get to the meat of Jesus' spirtiual ethical construct which was basically love God, love truth, love your neighbor, love the sinner but hate the sin. ("Sin" essentially meaning to act without love.) That's where I'm at. If folks want to believe in things I find highly unlikely then that's cool w/me. Whatever floats your boat. However, with Islam they don't know when to back off and have no concept of religious tolerance - therefore they will most definitely have to be dealt w/in the manner outlined by the author or by overwhelming crushing force - and sooner rather then later.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-05-24 11:50|| 2006-05-24 11:50|| Front Page Top

#13 In short Lucky, Prophet of Ancient Rantburg, was correct. It's Fake!

Posted by 6 2006-05-24 12:19|| 2006-05-24 12:19|| Front Page Top

#14 I agree with you, Fred. I do think it is a more natural progression from religion to agnosticism: the belief that there may be a God but it is unexplainable by organised religion.

I myself vacillate between Christianity and agnosticism.

But yes, I do not resile from lumping Christian miracles with any miracle from any other faith. They are all faith-based and unable to be proven or disproven by scientific methods which deal in the 'real' world.

That does not have to be taken as a criticism.

It just means you cannot prove or disprove it. So an appeal to rationality or logic is going to have no effect on the followers of Islam because they do not need to have a rational or logical basis for their belief.

That is the nature of religion, it is based on the human capacity for magical thinking whether or not there is a God, we all have the capacity to believe in the supernatural.

It is part of the human condition.

So you cannot defeat Islam by arguing with it's followers rationally, trying to disprove that Mohammed was a prophet or that their God Allan is good and worthy of worship, or that their religion will cause them to fail and fail again in life. They won't care they *know* they are going to heaven and because there is no way you can prove or disprove scientifically that they are right or wrong you will get precisely nowhere.

That's why I say that moderate muslims are our best bet.

And to argue comparative religion (Christianity is better than Islam because we have the 10 commandments) is usually fairly unproductive I believe, because with religion it is all in the interpretation.

It is only because we are enlightened, 21st century people that we listen to the 10 commandments, and not for example the directives in the old testament to sacrifice a dove and burn our clothes and burn the house if it gets mould in it.

That's in the bible!

Or that we are not all communists (it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven).

With religion it is all in the eye of the interpreter.

A humanist, secular interpretation of Islam could be just as much a force for good in the world as the humanist, secular interpretation of Christianity has been. And it has, I'm not knocking Christians I believe they do a world of good, and the only reason we have tolerant secular democracies was because they built the foundations.

Posted by anon1 2006-05-24 12:34|| 2006-05-24 12:34|| Front Page Top

#15 Plus I agree with you again, Fred: no God worthy of worship would eat Adoration 5 times a day.

What a vain creation it would be, with such low self-esteem to want to hear that head banging all day long.

I'm sure God would far prefer we do good deeds and show our appreciation of the gift of life by as far as possible making a heaven in Earth's despite.

Posted by anon1 2006-05-24 12:37|| 2006-05-24 12:37|| Front Page Top

#16 well said, anon1.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-05-24 13:55|| 2006-05-24 13:55|| Front Page Top

#17 I cannot agree that "there is nothing good in Islam." I wholeheartedly agree that Muhammadanism is a lie, but a lie with enough truth mixed in to make it strong. "Know your enemy" is a good rule.

So what's true about it? Stuff Muhammad borrowed: One God, maker of the world, expects right actions from the people he created and will judge them accordingly. He wants to be merciful. Etc. Most of the right actions are perfectly benign, and there are people who try to live their lives accordingly, and succeed as well as anybody else. However, Muhammad fits John's definition of antichrist quite nicely even without the nasty stuff.

The bulk of the problems for the rest of the world come from the stuff he added in to consolidate his own power, justify extra wives for himself, protect his favorite wife, encourage energetic razzias, etc. And, of course, from all the sayings made up later to support one caliph's policy or another; and the notion that arabian customs at the time were a good default.

Of course my ideal would be for them all to convert to Christianity. But if we're trying for the more limited objective of suppressing the more violent and revolting aspects of Muhammadanism, then we'll get farther by trying to encourage them to judge the bad by the good. You can address this sort of thing step by step: Use the tradition of respect for different schools to undercut the Wahhabi claims to define the religion; use things like the case where a pregnant rape victim was to be punished while the rapist went free to address the way sharia uses precedent, and so on. Think "achievable incremental changes."

Of course when I say "use" I mean that they have to do it themselves: our contribution could only be covert at best. And I'm not convinced that the "moderates" will try very hard, though if the radicals keep getting themselves killed and the funding pipeline dries up the "moderates" might find a little courage to try.

I don't think Muhammadanism is going to collapse. And I think the violent aspects are too deeply built into its sacred documents to completely get rid of them. Short of my ideal, all I can hope for is that the survivors of this struggle in Muhammadanism will focus on its peaceful aspects.

Posted by James">James 2006-05-24 14:18|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2006-05-24 14:18|| Front Page Top

00:00 SteveS
23:51 Glains Threrese9277
23:42 Oldspook
23:42 Sen. Voinovitch
23:40 Oldspook
23:39 11A5S
23:37 11A5S
23:29 DMFD
23:21 Anonymoose
23:13 Frank G
23:08 Sgt. Mom
23:08 DMFD
22:59 DMFD
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:47 Cyber Sarge
22:44 DMFD
22:40 Cyber Sarge
22:39 JosephMendiola
22:34 JosephMendiola
22:31 JosephMendiola
22:26 Manolo
22:21 RWV
22:20 JosephMendiola
22:18 djohn66