Libertarian Girl

12 Responses to “New Hampshire: …. Or Die?”

1. Cute …

   I don’t have any suggestions, though I was surprised by the low results for Rep. Paul. Sorry.

   Wickle
   January 11th, 2008

2. He was only 3% behind the Huckster for 3rd place, but yes, I was expecting better from the Live Free or Die state. His best state may be in fact Michigan or South Carolina (McCain is certainly hurting himself in Michigan with his recent racist comments against the entire Arab/Islamic population, of which Michigan has a large contingent) and maybe even California, from what I’ve heard. Who can predict these things?

   libertariangirl
   January 11th, 2008

3. Ahem.  “Islamic” isn’t a race.  Islam is a totalitarian imperialist political system with the trappings of a religion, trying (and succeeding) to use the latter as a way to exempt itself from analysis and criticism while gaining power.

   Spend some time reading Jihad Watch to see these claims quoted, and dissected.

   Engineer-Poet
   January 12th, 2008

4. True. I know that, but McCain apparently doesn’t. “Religionist,” as well, then, but mostly racist against Arabs. He first of all, 1.) stated that the entire Middle East is al Qaeda, 2.) that they “only trade burkas,” which is both against a religion and a race (implying many things at once, that every Islamic person is a member of al Qaeda, and that every Middle Easterner/Islamic person has nothing more to offer than burkas.)

   In truth, most of the one billion believers in Islam do not live in the Middle East, they live in Asia! And it goes without saying, but no McCain, not every Middle Easterner is a member of al Qaeda.

   Video here:
   http://youtube.com/watch?v=gjGpM4C62-c

   libertariangirl
   January 12th, 2008

5. Talk about heavy-handed editing….

   McCain is stereotyping, but there is a core of truth in it; the non-oil economies of the oil sheikdoms are minuscule.  Further, Muslim-dominated countries tend away from economic development (contrast two nations drawn from the same racial stock and on similar territory but differing in religio-political dominance:  Pakistan and India).

   Al Qaeda doesn’t have membership rolls, but would you care to place a bet on the level of support for Osama bin Laden even among Muslims living in the West?

   Engineer-Poet
   January 13th, 2008

6. The United Arab Emirates has a booming economy mostly based on tourism and construction, and I don’t think much of it is actually from oil. Good point about Pakistan vs. India, though.

   Support for Osama bin Laden? I don’t think it would be that high among Western Muslims. He killed a lot of them as well in the 9/11 attacks. Most Muslims are not of the fundamentalist/jihadist type.

   There are a number of nonprofit groups in the US that support, for instance, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt– which many people consider to be a terrorist organization. Support among those groups may very well be high, but most Muslims aren’t in those types of groups.

   A few of the people around me when the 9/11 attacks occurred were Muslims from foreign countries– one from Malaysia and one from Indonesia, and a few other countries as well. They were just as horrified as the rest of us. I don’t see why American Muslims would be any different.

   Now, if you want to talk about Britain, France and some other countries where Muslims are often forced to assimilate into those societies, that may very well be a different story. Britain has had suicide/terrorist bombings since 9/11. Most of these people were second-generation immigrants whose parents weren’t very religious. They felt like they didn’t fit in among Muslims or in Britain. It’s an interesting phenomenon. Many articles have been written about how America assimilates these types of immigrants better by not forcing assimilation– we have a better job climate, less racism/religionism and that sort of thing, and Muslims do well here while they remain poorer in many other countries.

   libertariangirl
   January 14th, 2008

7. Regarding the “progressive” UAE, you should read this piece about a French teenager raped by some Arab men… and then prosecuted for homosexuality.

   http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018642.php

   Engineer-Poet
   January 25th, 2008

8. Rather, threatened with prosecution.

   Engineer-Poet
   January 25th, 2008

9. I don’t think any of them are progressive… not very many countries are, actually. That’s a sad story.

   libertariangirl
   January 25th, 2008

10. It ought to make you wonder how much of what you know is actually PC propaganda.

    Along those lines, this story deeply disturbed me but, alas, didn’t surprise me:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080111/NATION04/958738459/1008

    Engineer-Poet
    January 25th, 2008

11. I would be interested in hearing what that official has to say, but I side with Michael Scheuer (the CIA’s top expert on bin Laden for 10 years) that a huge reason why Islamic terrorism can recruit so many people is that they perceive that we are “occupying” them and that we are an empire.

    When you look from their perspective at our bases in 130 countries, the Iraq War, etc., you can see how they can make a case to people who don’t have too many other options in life.

    Just like a regular murder: if you find out the murderer did it because he was the person’s boyfriend, you don’t blame the victim, you educate other people to watch out for domestic violence and try to prevent the situation from happening again. It’s not our fault, but we can stop giving them fodder for recruitment.

    If what this official says is true, with >1 billion Muslims in the world, why aren’t more of them attacking us for some type of a jihad? More than 1 billion people could do a lot of damage. It just doesn’t compute.

    You also have to look at the disconnect between what a religion says in its texts and what is actually focused on. What are the main points of the Bible? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you– that’s probably also broken by every single Christian at least once a day if not more. From looking at evangelicals, you’d think that the Bible revolved around gay people… but there are only three mentions of that in the entire Bible. It also says for women never to cut their hair, to rest on Sundays, to give 10% of your income to the Lord, etc. How many Christians actually do those things? A very, very small percentage… even 1% compliance would amaze me on that.

    So, even if the Koran says to do all these things (I’ve never read it, so I don’t know either way), the likelihood of full compliance is not great. If we go by what our own example teaches us, those following sharia law would focus more on things which aren’t even mentioned that much in the Koran, like not drinking alcohol, etc., than the large subjects which should be dwelt on. It’s easier to enforce strict pronouncements (”don’t drink alcohol,” “don’t be gay”) than to enforce things which everyone would have to comply with (be peaceful, love thy neighbor as you do yourself).

    Or, maybe it’s that jihad isn’t mentioned that much, and that’s what that extremist wing is focusing on rather than the broader message of peace.

    I don’t know the answers, but they are interesting questions!

    libertariangirl
    January 26th, 2008

12. “Occupation” is the complaint du jour.  The problem is that we are part of the Dar al Harb (Domain of War) and “war is deceit”; the Muslims of the Barbary states didn’t need occupation (except occupation of land somewhere on earth) to make war on the fledgling USA.

    Christopher Hitchens gave a presentation on Thomas Jefferson a while back.  A video excerpt is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6MD2TZMYII, but I’ll give you the money quote from the end:

    When Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Adams called upon the ambassador of the Barbary powers to ask him by what right he did this to American ships and American citizens (after all, the United States had not taken part in the Crusades, the United States had not taken part in the reconquest of Andalusia) this is what the ambassador answered as Jefferson wrote in his report to Congress.

    The ambassador answered us, “that it [the piracy and kidnapping and enslavement] that it was founded on the laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that ordinations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and their duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.”

    Engineer-Poet
    January 26th, 2008