Thanks for the article, Kawilt. I've read several of Chengu's work before and have been impressed by his perspective and conceptive writings.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
War - What is it good for?
- Thread starter Michael Scally MD
- Start date
You love those conspiracy theories, don't you Kawilt? The problem with the author's assertions is that Muslims have had the same grievances with EVERYONE they've encountered for 13 centuries. The last time I checked, the US hasn't been around that long. LOL
I'm just surprised the author didn't blame those pesky Jews (although he did take a few shots). Everybody knows they are behind everything bad.
How Dare You?! The Supremacist Nature of Muslim ‘Grievances’
By Raymond Ibrahim on July 12, 2013 in Islam, Muslim Persecution of Christians
In 2012 in Pakistan, as Christian children were singing carols inside their church, Muslim men from a nearby mosque barged in with an axe, destroyed the furniture, desecrated the altar, and beat the children. Their justification for such violence? “You are disturbing our prayers…. How dare you use the mike and speakers?”
Welcome to the true face of “Muslim grievance”—what I call the “how dare you?!” phenomenon. Remember it next time “progressive” media and politicians tell you that Muslim terrorism—whether the 9/11 strikes, Fort Hood Massacre, Boston Bombing, or recent London Beheading—are products of grievances against the West. Missing from their analyses is the supremacist nature of Muslim grievances.
The Conditions of Omar, a foundational medieval Muslim text, mandates this sense of superiority over non-Muslims. Among other stipulations, the Conditions commands conquered Christians not to raise their “voices during prayer or readings in churches anywhere near Muslims” (hence the axe-attack in Pakistan). It also commands them not to display any signs of Christianity—specifically Bibles and crosses—not to build churches, and not to criticize the prophet.
If the supremacist nature of Islamic law is still not clear enough, the Conditions literally command Christians to give up their seats to Muslims on demand.
By analogy, consider when black Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to white passengers in a white supremacist environment. Sincere grievances arose: how dare she think herself our equal?
But were such grievances legitimate? Should they have been accommodated?
In my new book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, I document hundreds of attacks on Christians. In most cases, the Muslim attackers are truly aggrieved.
For example, in 2007 in Turkey, a publishing house distributing Bibles was stormed and three of its Christian employees tortured, disemboweled, and finally murdered. One suspect later said: “We didn’t do this for ourselves, but for our religion [Islam]…. Our religion is being destroyed.”
Similarly, in 2011 in Egypt, after a 17-year-old Christian student refused to obey his Muslim teacher’s orders to cover up his cross, the teacher and some Muslim students attacked, beat, and ultimately murdered the Christian teenager.
These Turkish and Egyptian murderers were truly aggrieved: the Conditions clearly state that Christians must not “produce a cross or Bible” around Muslims. How dare the Egyptian student and Turkish Bible publishers refuse to comply?
In Indonesia, where it is becoming next to impossible for Christians to build churches, Christians congregated to celebrate Christmas, 2012, on empty land where they hoped to build a church—only to be attacked by Muslims who hurled cow dung and bags of urine at the Christians as they prayed.
These Muslims were also sincerely aggrieved: how dare these Christians think they can build a church when the Conditions forbid it? (See Crucified Again for a new translation of “The Conditions of Omar.)
Weeks ago in Pakistan,after a Christian man was accused of insulting Muslim prophet Muhammad—another big no-no according to the Conditions—3,000 Muslims burned down two churches and some 200 Christian homes.
Take a look at their pictures; these are undoubtedly people with a “grievance.”
Most recently in Pakistan, when a Muslim slapped a Christian and the latter reciprocated, the Muslim exclaimed “How dare a Christian slap me?” Anti-Christian violence immediately commenced.
In short, anytime non-Muslims dare to overstep their Sharia-designated “inferior” status, supremacist Muslims become violently aggrieved.
From here, one can begin to understand the ultimate Muslim grievance: Israel.
For if “infidel” Christians are deemed inferior and attacked by aggrieved Muslims for exercising their basic human rights, like freedom of worship, how must Muslims feel about Jews—the descendants of pigs and apes, according to the Koran—exercising power and authority over fellow Muslims in what is perceived to be Muslim land?
How dare they?!
Of course, if grievances against Israel were really about justice and displaced Palestinians, Muslims—and their Western appeasers—would be aggrieved by the fact that millions of Christians are currently being displaced by Muslim invaders.
Needless to say, they are not.
So the next time you hear that Muslim rage and terrorism are products of grievance, remember that this is absolutely true. But these “grievances” are not predicated on any universal standards of equality or justice, only a supremacist worldview.
Islamic State Atrocities the Product of ‘Grievances’?
September 17, 2014 by Raymond Ibrahim
While many have rightfully criticized U.S. President Obama’s recent assertion that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” some of his other equally curious but more subtle comments pronounced in the same speech have been largely ignored.Consider the president’s invocation of the “grievances” meme to explain the Islamic State’s success: “At this moment the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL—which calls itself the Islamic State.”
Obama’s logic, of course, is fortified by an entire apparatus of professional apologists who make the same claim. Thus Georgetown professor John Esposito—whose apologetics sometimes morph into boldfaced lies—also recently declaredthat “The “primary drivers [for the Islamic State’s violence] are to be found elsewhere,” that is, not in Islam but in a “long list of grievances.”
In other words and once again, it’s apparently somehow “our fault” that Islamic State Muslims are behaving savagely—crucifying, beheading, enslaving, and massacring people only on the basis that they are “infidels”: thus when IS herds and slaughters “infidel” men (citing the example of the prophet)—that’s because they’re angry at something America did; when IS captures “infidel” women and children, and sells them on the sex-slave market (citing Islamic teachings)—that’s because they’re angry at something America did; when IS bombs churches, breaks their crosses, and tells Christians to convert or die (citing Islamic scriptures)—that’s because they’re angry at something America did.
Although the “grievance” meme flies in the face of logic, it became especially popular after the 9/11 al-Qaeda strikes on America. The mainstream media, following the Islamist propaganda network Al Jazeera’s lead, uncritically picked up and disseminated Osama bin Laden’s videotapes to the West where he claimed that al-Qaeda’s terror campaign was motivated by grievances against the West—grievances that ranged from U.S. support for Israel to failure for the U.S. to sign the Kyoto Agreement concerning climate change.
Of course, that was all rubbish, and I have written more times than I care to remember about how in their internal Arabic-language communiques to fellow Muslims that never get translated to English, Osama, al-Qaeda, and virtually every Islamist organization make it a point to insist that jihad is an Islamic obligation that has nothing to do with grievances.
Consider Osama’s own words in an internal letter to fellow Saudis:
Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue — one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice — and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually?
Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; [2] or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; [3] or the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)
Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; [2] or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; [3] or the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)
Conversion, submission, or the sword is, of course, the mission of the Islamic State—not alleviating “grievances.” Yet it’s worse than that; for unlike al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, from day one of its existence, has made it very clear—in Osama’s words, “with power and determination, with one voice”—that its massacres, enslavements, crucifixions, and beheadings of “infidels” are all based on Islamic law or Sharia—not silly “grievances” against the West. Unlike al-Qaeda, the Islamic State is confident enough to avoid the grievances/taqiyya game and forthrightly asserts its hostility for humans based on their religious identity.
Yet by slipping the word “grievances” to explain the Islamic State’s Sharia-based savageries, Obama apparently hopes America has been thoroughly conditioned like Pavlov’s dog to automatically associate Islamic world violence with “grievances.”
What Obama fails to understand—or fails to mention—is that, yes, the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and countless angry Muslims around the world are indeed often prompted to acts of violence by “grievances.” But as fully explained here, these “grievances” are not predicated on any universal standards of equality or justice, only a supremacist worldview.
Last edited:
Keeps a lot of people employed in an interesting and rewarding career...Just be careful..
We both love these conspiracy theories cbs..You love those conspiracy theories, don't you Kawilt? The problem with the author's assertions is that Muslims have had the same grievances with EVERYONE they've encountered for 13 centuries. The last time I checked, the US hasn't been around that long. LOL
I'm just surprised the author didn't blame those pesky Jews. Everybody knows they are behind everything bad.
How Dare You?! The Supremacist Nature of Muslim ‘Grievances’
By Raymond Ibrahim on July 12, 2013 in Islam, Muslim Persecution of Christians
In 2012 in Pakistan, as Christian children were singing carols inside their church, Muslim men from a nearby mosque barged in with an axe, destroyed the furniture, desecrated the altar, and beat the children. Their justification for such violence? “You are disturbing our prayers…. How dare you use the mike and speakers?”
Welcome to the true face of “Muslim grievance”—what I call the “how dare you?!” phenomenon. Remember it next time “progressive” media and politicians tell you that Muslim terrorism—whether the 9/11 strikes, Fort Hood Massacre, Boston Bombing, or recent London Beheading—are products of grievances against the West. Missing from their analyses is the supremacist nature of Muslim grievances.
The Conditions of Omar, a foundational medieval Muslim text, mandates this sense of superiority over non-Muslims. Among other stipulations, the Conditions commands conquered Christians not to raise their “voices during prayer or readings in churches anywhere near Muslims” (hence the axe-attack in Pakistan). It also commands them not to display any signs of Christianity—specifically Bibles and crosses—not to build churches, and not to criticize the prophet.
If the supremacist nature of Islamic law is still not clear enough, the Conditions literally command Christians to give up their seats to Muslims on demand.
By analogy, consider when black Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to white passengers in a white supremacist environment. Sincere grievances arose: how dare she think herself our equal?
But were such grievances legitimate? Should they have been accommodated?
In my new book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, I document hundreds of attacks on Christians. In most cases, the Muslim attackers are truly aggrieved.
For example, in 2007 in Turkey, a publishing house distributing Bibles was stormed and three of its Christian employees tortured, disemboweled, and finally murdered. One suspect later said: “We didn’t do this for ourselves, but for our religion [Islam]…. Our religion is being destroyed.”
Similarly, in 2011 in Egypt, after a 17-year-old Christian student refused to obey his Muslim teacher’s orders to cover up his cross, the teacher and some Muslim students attacked, beat, and ultimately murdered the Christian teenager.
These Turkish and Egyptian murderers were truly aggrieved: the Conditions clearly state that Christians must not “produce a cross or Bible” around Muslims. How dare the Egyptian student and Turkish Bible publishers refuse to comply?
In Indonesia, where it is becoming next to impossible for Christians to build churches, Christians congregated to celebrate Christmas, 2012, on empty land where they hoped to build a church—only to be attacked by Muslims who hurled cow dung and bags of urine at the Christians as they prayed.
These Muslims were also sincerely aggrieved: how dare these Christians think they can build a church when the Conditions forbid it? (See Crucified Again for a new translation of “The Conditions of Omar.)
Weeks ago in Pakistan,after a Christian man was accused of insulting Muslim prophet Muhammad—another big no-no according to the Conditions—3,000 Muslims burned down two churches and some 200 Christian homes.
Take a look at their pictures; these are undoubtedly people with a “grievance.”
Most recently in Pakistan, when a Muslim slapped a Christian and the latter reciprocated, the Muslim exclaimed “How dare a Christian slap me?” Anti-Christian violence immediately commenced.
In short, anytime non-Muslims dare to overstep their Sharia-designated “inferior” status, supremacist Muslims become violently aggrieved.
From here, one can begin to understand the ultimate Muslim grievance: Israel.
For if “infidel” Christians are deemed inferior and attacked by aggrieved Muslims for exercising their basic human rights, like freedom of worship, how must Muslims feel about Jews—the descendants of pigs and apes, according to the Koran—exercising power and authority over fellow Muslims in what is perceived to be Muslim land?
How dare they?!
Of course, if grievances against Israel were really about justice and displaced Palestinians, Muslims—and their Western appeasers—would be aggrieved by the fact that millions of Christians are currently being displaced by Muslim invaders.
Needless to say, they are not.
So the next time you hear that Muslim rage and terrorism are products of grievance, remember that this is absolutely true. But these “grievances” are not predicated on any universal standards of equality or justice, only a supremacist worldview.
Islamic State Atrocities the Product of ‘Grievances’?
September 17, 2014 by Raymond Ibrahim
While many have rightfully criticized U.S. President Obama’s recent assertion that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” some of his other equally curious but more subtle comments pronounced in the same speech have been largely ignored.
Consider the president’s invocation of the “grievances” meme to explain the Islamic State’s success: “At this moment the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL—which calls itself the Islamic State.”
Obama’s logic, of course, is fortified by an entire apparatus of professional apologists who make the same claim. Thus Georgetown professor John Esposito—whose apologetics sometimes morph into boldfaced lies—also recently declaredthat “The “primary drivers [for the Islamic State’s violence] are to be found elsewhere,” that is, not in Islam but in a “long list of grievances.”
In other words and once again, it’s apparently somehow “our fault” that Islamic State Muslims are behaving savagely—crucifying, beheading, enslaving, and massacring people only on the basis that they are “infidels”: thus when IS herds and slaughters “infidel” men (citing the example of the prophet)—that’s because they’re angry at something America did; when IS captures “infidel” women and children, and sells them on the sex-slave market (citing Islamic teachings)—that’s because they’re angry at something America did; when IS bombs churches, breaks their crosses, and tells Christians to convert or die (citing Islamic scriptures)—that’s because they’re angry at something America did.
Although the “grievance” meme flies in the face of logic, it became especially popular after the 9/11 al-Qaeda strikes on America. The mainstream media, following the Islamist propaganda network Al Jazeera’s lead, uncritically picked up and disseminated Osama bin Laden’s videotapes to the West where he claimed that al-Qaeda’s terror campaign was motivated by grievances against the West—grievances that ranged from U.S. support for Israel to failure for the U.S. to sign the Kyoto Agreement concerning climate change.
Of course, that was all rubbish, and I have written more times than I care to remember about how in their internal Arabic-language communiques to fellow Muslims that never get translated to English, Osama, al-Qaeda, and virtually every Islamist organization make it a point to insist that jihad is an Islamic obligation that has nothing to do with grievances.
Consider Osama’s own words in an internal letter to fellow Saudis:
Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue — one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice — and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually?
Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; [2] or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; [3] or the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)
Conversion, submission, or the sword is, of course, the mission of the Islamic State—not alleviating “grievances.” Yet it’s worse than that; for unlike al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, from day one of its existence, has made it very clear—in Osama’s words, “with power and determination, with one voice”—that its massacres, enslavements, crucifixions, and beheadings of “infidels” are all based on Islamic law or Sharia—not silly “grievances” against the West. Unlike al-Qaeda, the Islamic State is confident enough to avoid the grievances/taqiyya game and forthrightly asserts its hostility for humans based on their religious identity.
Yet by slipping the word “grievances” to explain the Islamic State’s Sharia-based savageries, Obama apparently hopes America has been thoroughly conditioned like Pavlov’s dog to automatically associate Islamic world violence with “grievances.”
What Obama fails to understand—or fails to mention—is that, yes, the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and countless angry Muslims around the world are indeed often prompted to acts of violence by “grievances.” But as fully explained here, these “grievances” are not predicated on any universal standards of equality or justice, only a supremacist worldview.
But Christians have. Lots of horrific acts have been and are committed by the people of many popular religions, supposedly justified by their beliefs. The only thing more destructive is the nation state, and when you consider nationalism and its impact on common sense, it's not very different from traditional religions.
CBS.. I really don't want to get into another long and drawn out discourse like we did (or I did) when you posted that British clown making his little hate speech, which was full of misleading statements, twisted history and downright lies. What you've just cut and pasted is in the similar vein. Suffice to say that I agree with flenser's post.
Christians along with Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Muslims have all existed at the same time. Can you guess which one has fought with ALL the others since its inception, and continues to do so to this day?
.
Well...Hmmm. Lets see. Abraham had something to do with all this.
And yet you were unable to point out a single misleading statement, nor did you show one example of twisted history or identify any downright lies. Interesting that you consider my pro-Israel posts hate speech but you post anti-Semitic screeds all the time and never bat an eye.
With Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians and Hindus?!?!
Or perhaps you're suggesting all Abrahamic religions are at fault. If that's the case, perhaps you can show us an example of a Jewish army attacking Hindus. Or a Christian army attacking Zoroastrians.
So your saying the Muslim religions are MORE horrific than any of the others, at least with respect to who they hate which is everyone else. Good thing we're not counting bodies.
The reason you gave last time for not addressing the points raised by that "British clown" was that you needed a written transcript. Now that my recent "cut and paste" has provided you with the written transcript you require, shall I assume you will be pointing out the misleading statements, twisted history and downright lies?
I really don't want to because of my addiction to Meso. The hours that I lose at work reading these forums has become ridiculous. But I will get around to it. It took me forever listening to that"clown" over and over and writing down his accusations. At least here I can read them. Well.. I will point out the obvious slants and bits and pieces left out. Twisted history and downright lies I will have to see, that was in regards to our friend. And I did say "in the same vein".
Just because someone does not agree with an Israeli point of view. Why do you call them anti-semitic? If you want anti-semitic there are a number of orthodox Jewish religous sects which will fit the bill. Talk to the Neturei Karta sect, for example. And if you like I'll get you a list of other "anti-semitic" Jewish groups. First of all explain to me just what you mean by "anti-semitic"? And don't get Zionism mixed up with Judaism.
HuckingFuge
New Member
there are like 190 conflicts going on around the world. Muslims are responsible for roughly 170 of them. how many conflicts are Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists responsible for?
I haven't counted them, but I will. And I wouldn't doubt that you are correct. But I think the more apt statement would have been "Muslims are INVOLVED IN" not necessarily responsible for.
HuckingFuge
New Member
It's rather fortuitous the US has such a vile enemy sitting on all that oil and holding the best strategic locations for challenging, I mean defending against, Russia and China. Are you guys sure Muslims don't also eat Christian babies? The Germans were said to do that before WWI.
HuckingFuge
New Member
what conspiracy are you referring too? the USA takes Muslim oil? the USA hasn't taken shit! we buy from most countries including Russia. China has no oil, so we buy all of China's cheap ass shit. that is forced down our throats by greedy ass US companies.
Muslims have no issues with killing woman and children. Muslims have the thinnest skin of any body. Muslims will kill you over a blood feud several hundred years old. if some how the family gets shamed. they get to rape a young woman, kill her, ect.. boys are treated as little fuck buddies. I can go on and on, but it is like talking to a wall when you can't accept the truth that is smacking you in the face. when you open your eyes to what is happening, maybe you can face the truth. I'm not making this up, just look around it is happening every place.
We have to remember "Nothing happens in a vacuum" If we can always ask why things happen, we are better able to understand why things are the way they are. That's just trying to learn from history. As the quote goes
"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history". We can't take a little block of time and really get any answers from it. Very interesting subject for me but I've got to pay the bills so it's back to work.
