451. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83447 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 4:07 am

115. Comment #83443 by GoatBoy36 on October 30, 2007 at 3:57 am
Wow, try downloading the full document from that Adobe link earlier on, and go down to page 31 and start reading ...

Some people are complete nutjobs. No contest. The question is what do we do about that?

Do you have a course of action you think sensible Goatboy? Genuine question. Should such material be banned, it's possession considered a criminal offence?

452. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83439 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 3:37 am

Walid Shoebat said it best: "We looking at not just one, but up to fifty-three Nazi germanies if these guys get their way." To which I can add that at least one of these, and probably others, will be nuclear armed, and they all will have millions of supporters in Western Democracies.

Classic! How does he work this out? By taking the population of Germany in 1933 (the global population at the time was about 2 billion) and dividing it into 1.5 billion. I bet that is how he created this soundbite. How stupid do you have to be to fall for this stuff? Ah ... kids:-)

End of credibility. Next bullshit story please:-)

453. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83438 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 3:29 am

Fanusi, seems your backlash against Islam has some supporters...

Horrifying stuff, but I don't believe the article endorsed executions and mass deportations did it?

I'm not sure what the deal is in Britian, but religious hate speech in Sweden is hate speech regardless. A fundamentalist spent jail time for prattling on about the abomination of homosexuality. I would expect the same thing for those inciting people to murder in Britian? No?

I suppose it gets fuzzier when it comes to printed material that is generally available. Tricky. These guys aren't doing themselves (or those of us keeping things rational) any favours, thats for sure.

454. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83436 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 3:21 am

Expelling Shariah supporters means expelling people who support _exactly that_. They aren't to be harmed, just, if they are found to advocate the imposition of Shariah law, they will be shown the door to whatever Muslim country they please.

I welcome the reduction in your position from execution to expulsion. We'll get you back into the human race yet:-)

Made things up to suit yourself, in other words.

That is a bit rich from a chap who speculates European domination and enslavement from a base of 5%, less than that in the UK.

I got it (slightly) wrong and I fessed up. I should have looked up the article first. However, my speculation, that if nearly double the per capita base of French muslims consider themselves French citizens first and Muslims second (compared to the UK), this logically translates to less support for Sharia law is hardly such a leap is it? Plus the biggest base of Muslims in a major Western democracy (approaching 10%) is in France, so this is good news, no?

It is of course a disruptive fact if you are trying to paint the majority of muslims as raving lunatics.

Secondly, you ignore that the fact that there is currently zero opposition to this madness.

Well thats just flat wrong isn't it? Aren't I having to keep the lunatic fringe on a leash right here? Isn't there a discussion raging, and haven't all the western democracies (with the US in the forefront) already begun truncating and abbrevating civil rights? Um ... yay? If by zero action you mean we aren't summarily executing anyone or expelling citizens, well yeah. Thank goodness.

A full third of British Muslims have already testified their willingness to act as enforcers - support the killing of apostates.

And I think that is crazy too. However, they represent a tiny fraction of the UK populace ... what is it 1.5%? Get real yourself. What a panic monger, what must you be like in an actual emergency. Headless chicken city.

Certainly we should be uncompromising in prosecuting apostate killings or honour killings with the full rigour of the law. Sweden is a good example of where this happens, curiously without abrogating anyones human rights. Go figure.

Here is someone to look up to. Someone heroic who gave her life in pursuit of rights for others instead of taking the lives of others because of her completely justified fear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fadime_Sahindal
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/02/04/sweden.sahindal/

It is a harrowing story, and I can guess in advance that you will draw completely different conclusions to mine. Ah well, one can only hope:-/

455. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83314 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Actually I think it is a pretty subtle attack on Christianity. I liked it though, even when I was a Christian. It may have helped now I think about it ....

Brilliant books, and my daughter loved them!

456. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83309 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Neither is anyone else. You keep resorting to this kind of blood libel, without the slightest facts to back you up.

Well except you of course. As a last resort you quickly add. A last resort which will be precipitated inevitably by your list of draconian first resorts. Summary executions, wholesale deportations ... can you say Dachau?

As for facts, well we have something better, your very own own words, in context and in glorious technicolor. Must we repost the same stuff over, and over again? Aren't you tired of being humiliated?

... and what is the rather Wagnerian term "blood libel" about?

457. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83304 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 3:06 pm

This happens all the time. You say that the fear of Eurabia was manufactured by 'fascists'. I give you a long list of people who have come to that conclusion independantly, from all corners of the political spectrum.

Well the majority backs me up on this I'm afraid, and although it's not everything, it does count for something when coupled with actual demographics, real percentages and an elementary grasp of statistics.

You ignore this. I point out that three quarters of Arab Muslims support the goals and aims of HAMAS, and you ignore that.

YAWN. As noted ad nauseum, even if every single muslim on the face of Earth thought this whole Jihad thing was a good idea they still couldn't pull it off, and it still wouldn't be a justification for a global war of ... ah ... pacification. Which doesn't mean I accept your massaged stats, I'm just pointing out that it still wouldn't matter. How do you manage to be wrong on so many levels simultaneously? You truly are the Maestro of muddled thinking, the Impresario of idiocy.

I point out that the Nazis rose to power as a small revolutionary cadre, and you ignore that. And on and on it goes.

To which I countered they rose to power because 40% of the German electorate voted for them. From this foundation, it took them several years to dismantle German democracy and start the 2nd World War. Clearly you are the one in denial here.

You expect 5% of the EU population to vault into the seat of power without an electoral plan, or a power base of any sort. A despised minority. This is true magical thinking. It is a tragically absurd story which is going to get people killed, innocent people who don't even know you exist, much less have done or wished you harm.

Please do. THis should be interesting; hearing how 45% or 35% or whatever is so much better than 50%. You, once again, passed over those areas that are literally under the control of Shariah. You also haven't bothered to find out that, thanks to its Islamic population, France is in the grips of the kind of anti-Semitism that hasn't been seen since the fall of the Reich.

Oh ... come ... on. You don't think this a little ... strident?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1840737,00.html

Erm ... I extropolated the original article somewhat, it doesn't actual mention Sharia law, but rather the priority of loyalties of Muslims in the UK and France, however I think the point still stands. Enjoy.

458. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83282 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 1:51 pm

One might take the view that the many Muslim maniacs who want to harm innocent Westerners do not have the capacity to do much harm at this time (a debatable point ). But surely one should not then appease or ignore those enemy forces. Surely the prudent approach would be to ensure that they do not develop that capacity in the future.

The issue for me is not about harm to individuals, clearly individuals can act as they please, but rather about the claim that Islam now, or in the future, will represent an existential threat to global civilisation.

This case simply cannot meaningfully be made. I also insist that we strap one hand behind our backs (because we can) and consider muslims living under such regiemes hostages to be rescued, not enemy combatants.

This informs my thinking on how to deal with the probably generally. I must insist, intent is completely irrelevant unless coupled with capacity. An angry baby would probably kill you if it could, yet we still don't dash them to pieces, do we?

Certainly we must take robust and sensible steps to minimise the risks we run from fanatics, but as anyone can see the correlation between an increase in terrorism and the Iraq war is pretty inescapable. More of the same will simply deliver the global conflagration Fanusi claims he is so desperately keen to avoid.

It's not going to be easy, and it is going to take a while. There are no easy outs, and the "hit them with everything" we've got meme is exactly that. An easy, deceptive out which will end in millions of deaths. Though you don't seem to be proposing that I hasten to add:-)

Still why even appear to be going to bat on behalf of Fanusi? I find that puzzling I have to say.

459. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83266 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 1:20 pm

And would it really kill you brian to actually deal with facts? The pattern of this conversation is that you make some rationalistic assertion, I counter with empirical evidence, which you promptly ignore.

Well here we have something in common, thats exactly what I think you do!! For example France has had riots certainly, as have many western countries. Any idea where the worst death tolls for riots in Western democracies have occurred in say the last 20 years? Hmmmm? Look it up, you'll be surprised.

Back to France though. I recall reading an article where similar questions vis a vis Sharia law had been asked of French muslims versus UK muslims, the article concluded that French were less likely to embrace Sharia law. It's really out there, real facts as opposed to speculation about what millions of people, may or may not do. Would you like me to find it for you? I'm sure I could. Maybe you'd like to find it first so you can integrate it into your world view:-)

460. AAI 07

Comment #83216 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 9:54 am

Down with farm subsidies!!! The EU spends a disgusting amount of money on a constituency that represents about 3% of the electorate.

It's sheer inertia, it certainly doesn't make political or economic sense. Besides with the agrifuels business coming on stream, farmers should be overrun with demand.

461. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83215 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 9:48 am

That ratio between European and Muslim males could reach 2:1 by 2025

Even if there were true, and given the current EU wide muslim base of 5% I think it unlikely, it still assumes all of these young men are onboard the fantasy train that you are the conductor of.

Yet, only 50% currently support any kind of Sharia law, and only in the UK. Elsewhere in the EU I believe the numbers are a good bit lower, France for example.

Laws regarding islamic parties is not a terrible idea, but I'd prefer to see general legislation against religious parties of all kinds. Here you are bumping up against the common problem of the moderates shielding the extremists.

It is irrational to take the wildest most extreme scenario you can, and then layer similar extrapolation on top. This is in essence what your entire case boils down to, a series of wildly unlikley "what ifs" stacked one on top of the other. Onto this rickety construct you want to bolt your justification for grevious attacks on personal liberty, property and person. Up to and including a general mobilisation of the west to subdue the Islamic world utterly and completely. With all that this entails ....

I'm back to considering you sincere but wacko so kudos on that front, otherwise I'm not buying. Anyone getting convinced by Fanusi's intense conviction, or have you all stopped listening?

462. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83201 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 9:09 am

As admitted by everyone, a full fifty percent of Muslims in the United Kingdom support Shariah law.

A full 50% of what? Is it even 3-4% of the UK population? Come on. More than 40% of Germans voted for the Nazis in the 1933 election. Do you see the same thing happening in Britian in even the next hundred years? A similar result in Britian would require 80% of the population to be demographically muslim, with half of those still supporting Sharia law in about 2150. By what magical method will this "takeover" take place?

I agree with you that people that embrace such retrograde ideas are assholes, but if that was grounds for expulsion both you and I would be on the list:-)

Get real. The islamification of Europe is a transparent scam, a hoax and a con dreamed up by our proto fascists and their extremists. Sides of the same coin.

By all means expel non nationals that have been prosecuted in a court of law and found guilty of real crimes. However British citizens? Expel them where? The idea is nonsensical. Would you just push them out of planes over Saudi Arabia?

463. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83186 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 8:03 am

77. Comment #83170 by epeeist on October 29, 2007 at 6:33 am

Deaths from terrorism - 2927
Deaths from road accidents - 179,608
Deaths caused by guns - 119,520

Let me anticipate Fanusi's response. He will of course have been referring to all deaths however remotely related to Islam. For example, there is plenty of Islamic terrorism in Iraq and even I with my acknowledged bias know that the poor american bastards currently caught in the middle are only accounting for a fraction of the violent deaths.

Yet bizarrely Fanusi thinks more of GWB's famously invigorating tonic (extract of cordite) will produce peace. More bombings, more invasions, MORE, MORE, MORE of the same will result in peace. Presumably when everyone with any sense of cultural identity that clashes with ours is dead. Or something.

Once again let me quote from that treasure trove of nascent totalitarianism. "Hitler, the early years.".

In 1923 came the great and bitter scandal. As early as 1922 we had seen that the Ruhr was about to be lost. France's aim was not merely to weaken Germany, to keep her from obtaining supremacy, but to break her up into small states so that she [France] would be able to hold the Rhine frontier. After all the Government's reiterations of our weakness, we knew that on top of the Saar and Upper Silesia we would lose our third coal region, the Ruhr; each loss brought on the next one....

Only burning, ruthless, brutal fanaticism could have saved the situation. The Reich Government should have let the hundreds of thousands of young men who were pouring out of the Ruhr into the Reich under the old colors of black-white-red flow together in a mighty national wave. Instead, these young people were sent back home. The resistance that was organized was for wages; the national resistance was degraded to a paid general strike. It was forgotten that a foe like France cannot be prayed away, still less can he be idled away....


Those scary, ruthless Frenchies ...

464. AAI 07

Comment #83176 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 7:33 am

Interesting thread! I'm staying out of it though .... :-)

I will say that I think Steve99 is landing some body blows. Ouch!!!

Back to lurking ....

465. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83171 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 6:38 am

For general amusement .... notice the similar spittle flecked tone.

. .: It is not necessary for me to strengthen the fame of the National Socialist Movement, far less that of the German Army, through military triumphs. He who is undertaking such great economic and cultural tasks as we are and is so determined to carry them through can find his fairest memorial only in peace.... But this bolshevism which as we learned only a few months since intends to equip its army so that it may with violence, if necessary, open the gate to revolution amongst other peoples - this bolshevism should know that before the gate of Germany stands the new German Army.... I believe that as a National Socialist I appear in the eyes of many bourgeois democrats as only a wild man. But as a wild man I still believe myself to be a better European, in any event a more sensible one, than they. It is with grave anxiety that I see the possibility in Europe of some such development as this: democracy may continuously disintegrate the European States, may make them internally ever more uncertain in their judgment of the dangers which confront them, may above all cripple all power for resolute resistance. Democracy is the canal through which bolshevism lets its poisons flow into the separate countries and lets them work there long enough for these infections to lead to a crippling of intelligence and of the force of resistance. I regard it as possible that then - in order to avoid something still worse - coalition governments, masked as Popular Fronts or the like, will be formed and that these will endeavor to destroy - and perhaps will successfully destroy - in these peoples the last forces which remain, either in organization or in mental outlook, which could offer opposition to bolshevism.

The brutal mass-slaughters of National Socialist fighters, the burning of the wives of National Socialist officers after petrol had been poured over them, the massacre of children and of babies of National Socialist parents, e.g. in Spain, are intended to serve as a warning to forces in other lands which represent views akin to those of National Socialism: such forces are to be intimidated so that in a similar position they offer no resistance. If these methods are successful: if the modern Girondins are succeeded by Jacobins, if Kerensky's Popular Front gives place to the Bolshevists, then Europe will sink into a sea of blood and mourning...

This paranoid twat kicked off a global war which killed more than 50 million people, most of them perfectly innocent individuals sucked into the maelstrom. He also thought it the "best/only/honourable" (insert trite soundbite here) solution, and I am quite certain, that even at his most cynical, he still thought he was doing the right thing for Germany. Oooops.

No thanks Fanusi, lets try surgery and a few courses of full spectrum antibiotics before we strap dynamite to that gangrenous toe. Eh?

466. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83165 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 6:21 am

Case closed. Get some help, really.

467. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83123 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 2:26 am

73. Comment #83120 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 29, 2007 at 2:20 am
My nefarious solution, which he duly places in scare quotes, is a program of sensible restrictions on immigration and prosecution of those Mosques and groups engaged in what is known as treason. Now, I know that sophisticates have trouble with this concept, but treason is considered the arch crime for good reason. It means acting to leave the entire inhabitants of a nation, tens of millions of people, at the tender mercies of an enemy. And when the enemy in this case is Islam, then it is far worse than usual.

Oh don't be shy. Use the word execution like you did last time. Tell us about the "only a million" casualties solution. That was a funny story:-)

What you've posted here sounds almost sane. I must be getting through:-)

468. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83113 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 1:39 am

I have to say that your earlier position seems untenable. I just don't see how anyone living in a post 9/11 world can say that no Muslim has ever behaved in a dangerous, Borg-like fashion. We all remember seeing those planes fly into the WTC, after all. Mohammad Atta: Monstrous, inhuman, unstoppable.

That is certainly not what I meant, it would be an absurd contention when history is rich with atrocity committed on all sides. You may be reading me a little too literally. You are also jumping into the discussion mid stream, and may not have seen the lengthy exchanges between myself and Fanusi.

If you are simply saying some muslims sometimes take their religion seriously, well, who could argue with something so obvious? The evidence is overwhelming.

However, the Borg collective, which is how Fanusi describes Islamic society does not exist, and this collapses his position for a genocidal pre-emptive war. A position which you'll note he has stopped denying and is back to justifying now that his duplicity has been exposed.

By the Borg I mean the Borg, by definition not indivduals. A unified collective acting in complete concert. There have never been human societies like this, and pending the relevant technology, there won't be. The current politicaly disorganised, economically stunted creature that is the Islamic world certainly doesn't qualify.

Individuals, or groups of individuals have certainly behaved horribly, 9/11 is a fine example, and there are plenty of individuals in all societies prepared to do horrific things. However, if this were the standard to justify genocide, then surely the US with it's track record on serial killers would be top of the list, as well as it's proven track record for atrocity and the use of atomic weapons. I jest of course.

One could not possibly argue that the Islamic world represents no danger, but what kind of danger, and what ought we do about it is the issue. Some muslims are bad others are good (by any reasonable definition). What is absolutely certain, is that they lack the political and economic capacity and co-ordination to form a threat that requires a global war.

I reject Fanusi's "solution" for the above, and many other reasons which I have articulated at length.

Finally, for your benefit Goatboy, let me try and condense my position in this discussion.

Do some muslims say crazy and threatening things? Yes.
Can they carry out their primary threat of world domination? No.
Might they get a hold of a nuclear weapon and blow up a western city? Possibly, I consider the likelihood low, but on the radar.
Is kicking off a world war, involving tens of millions of casualties a good "cure" for this problem? You tell me Goatboy, thats what this discussion is about:-)

469. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83110 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 29, 2007 at 1:19 am

What good is having sex wearing a condom, or indeed masturbation? Same class of question. Simple answer? It feels good. Now you are getting to the meat of the issue. Why does it feel good?

470. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #83090 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 28, 2007 at 11:11 pm

Got a pet? Why do you think it adores/loves/worships you? If they won't answer that, press them hard until they do, its obvious, and the list of signs is fairly short.

They run to you when you call, and often when you don't.
They purr and rub themselves against you.
Others report they howl or miao inconsolably when you are away.
They always want to be were you are.
They try to jump on you, and lick you, all the time.

It's easier than getting bogged down in the nebulous quagmire of human "love".

The indicators are basically the same with people, including the licking and jumping, just marginally more sophisticated:-)

471. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #82937 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 28, 2007 at 9:56 am

It is extremely amusing to hear this fool talk about 'drinking the blood of babies'. You might like to listen to Sam Harris describing Al Qaeda members hacking the head off an eight year old girl ...

... and every single muslim feels this way. Even the ones that say it appalls them. Just like everyone one of us share your absurd hysteria. Thanks for making the point. Just keep talking, and digging.


The moral responsibility for that scenario will lie firmly with those who have prefered to maintain a good self-image, rather than face reality.

No. The responsibility will lie with those who committed the atrocity. Just as the responsibility for a pre-emptive mass slaughter of innocent people to alleviate your panic would lie with whomever launches that.

I'm beginning to think the hand wringing is a front, you actually are what I first took you to be, a blood thirsty, obtusely prolific moron who can't remember what he writes half the time. Give it a rest why don't you?

472. Evolution to be taught in SA schools

Comment #82858 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 28, 2007 at 3:36 am

5. Comment #82850 by windweaver on October 28, 2007 at 2:59 am
When I visited South Africa, I was struck by the large number of Christian fundamentalists-especially among the Afrikaner population

I lived there as a teenager, and it's where I became a fundamentalist. My mother died recently, and when I was over for the funeral I was appalled at how superstitious and religious practically everyone was.

I came away thinking that it was the result of some kind of cross cultural pollination. Culturally, black people in SA are incredibly superstitous and spectacularly credulous, this has had an effect on the whites which manifests itself in Christian fundamentalism. Ghosts, demon possession, voodoo, reincarnation ... they lap it all up. Wild compared to Sweden.

473. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #82842 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 28, 2007 at 2:33 am

65. Comment #82836 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 28, 2007 at 2:14 am
brian you seem to be restricting yourself now to arguing that I am correct in my assessment of Islam ....

No. I'm just pointing out that even if you where correct, it wouldn't make any difference.

Your case is not merely flawed in a single dimension, but in several. That is what I'm saying.

As regards the Islamification of Europe, this too is nonsense. Detail below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0lRffYTStw

474. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #82831 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 28, 2007 at 1:15 am

Are you sure? As it happens, I'm reading a book just now that was written in the 1960s by a former naval officer who served in Malta during WWII. Writing of the siege of Malta in 1565, he says ...

There are plenty of counter arguments to this. Turkey for example, or Morroco. The very article we are posting on talks about muslims trying to free themselves from Islam.

Besides, I'm just not impressed by intent. I'm more impressed by the capacity. A german sheperd strikes fear into the heart, but a chiuaua? It might give you a nasty nip, but it's not going to rip your throat out, no matter how frenetically it barks. Should I stomp on it just because it thinks it's a real threat?

Even if all 1.5 billion in the Islamic world believed every word of lunacy ever written or said, and all of them as a man dismissed every word of peace, what of it? Must the richest, most heavily armed states the world has ever seen resort to culling a particular cultural group because of their obvious religion turbo charged delusions of granduer?

The Islamic world are not an existential threat in any sense, and I have yet to see a compelling case to be made that they are. Even Fanusi doesn't believe this, presenting his primary argument for pre-emptive mass attack as required to undercut our overreaction, in the event of a terrorist WMD event.

475. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #82614 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 27, 2007 at 1:19 am

It is into religious education rather than upbringing that I would want a first foray.

Thats well underway here in Sweden our conservatives just banned the teaching of creationism or it's analouges outright, in faith schools too.

I personally think that fairly uncontroversial, obviously some authority sets a universal curriculum, school boards can't just make stuff up.

Where I see some real problems coming is where society begins to say, you cannot tell your kids outright delusional and damaging lies, the whole business of hell for example. Is that an unnacceptable intrusion? Is that abuse?

If a parent told a child there was a monster under the bed, but if they just breathed softly enough it wouldn't hear them. If it did hear them, it would rise from it's lair and kill everyone in the house. Unequivocally abuse right? How is it different from telling 4 years olds there is a Hell?

476. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #82611 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 27, 2007 at 12:28 am

I disagree with you on this. I think the time has come to rid society of the automatic deference it shows to religion of any kind, Christian or Islam, moderate or extreme.

Well ...but ... this is an OUTRAGE. You swore an oath of fealty!! A bond of loyalty!! Erm .... not:-)

Although we don't disagree all that radically I suspect, as an eventual end game, complete organisational parity for religion, with everything else, certainly seems fair enough.

It would be tragically ironic if theists became a sort of oppressed minority. Still it's a fine line though, what happens when law begins to make inroads into religious upbringing?

In Sweden it is illegal to smack your children, in other countries it's not. A few decades ago this would have been considered an outrageous intrusion into the private sphere. Consider that wife beating was in a similar cultural context in most of the civilised world less than 70 or 80 years ago.

Tricky times.

477. What's Good About Religion?

Comment #82521 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 2:38 pm

I'm subscribed to his youtube account, and never miss a clip. There was one that I found somewhat over the top, but generally he is spot on. Full spectrum mockery, no holds barred. Just the way it should be. This is exactly what Muslims need to hear more of, so they get used to it.

478. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #82519 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 2:33 pm

I can be wrong on this but I suspect the U.K government's tolerance of and pandering to not so moderate Muslims is a kind of crass quiproquo offered to British Muslims to make up for its participation in Bush's war. I sense that quite strongly when Blair was prime minister.

There is a lot in that, and I know my own views have hardened over the last year or so. Pat Condell has the right idea, savage and relentless full spectrum mockery of religion, Islam included.

Muslims must wean themselves off their "kill the apostate" approach to criticism, and we have got to do more to support real moderates and especially apostates.

479. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #82513 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Fanusi, your selective reading is borderline delusional. I've explained all this at length, most recently in the previous post in somewhat abbreviated form.

What some parts of Islam teach means nothing, it must be coupled with capacity.

With each post you simply make a bigger fool of yourself, which is fine by me. Your noxious message should be exposed.

480. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #82491 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 12:54 pm

A simple no would have been much more reassuring. Your "solution" will precipitate the genocide you claim to wish to avoid.

Your assessment of the risk is hopelessly overstated, and you ignore completely the knock on effect on the rest of the Muslim world of the actions you suggest. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and they are by orders of magnitude more unstable and undemocratic than Iran.

You also seem to have learnt nothing from history. In the kind of free for all you propose, everyone that has an axe to grind will see a window of opportunity. Witness Turkey and Northern Iraq, and you already see the leading edge of the kind of chaos that could potentially engulf the world. Two NATO allies almost at loggerheads, over 15 soldiers!! You can bet your ass that China will be all over Taiwan like a rash.

Wise up man, you're not this stupid.

481. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #82476 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 12:16 pm

OK Fanusi. You absolutely did not use the word genocide. However, a "genocidal culling" (my choice of words) of muslims seems to me to be the logical outcome of your proposals.

Tell you what, I'll get off your case if you can tell me, in all honesty, that your current preferred course of action is NOT a full blown war with the Islamic world which will terminate in either their complete capitulation or complete destruction.

Well?

482. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #82455 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 11:19 am

Hey no problem. This from the most recent thread, and the last time we had at it the tone was similar.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1763,Interview-with-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali,Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali-Rogier-van-Bakel-Reason-Online#80565
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1763,Interview-with-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali,Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali-Rogier-van-Bakel-Reason-Online#80580

I'd be interested to hear from other parties. Am I overstating the case? If I've lost objectivity on this, I'll apologise, but first lets hear from a few neutral parties.

483. What's Good About Religion?

Comment #82447 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 10:59 am

I've been a fan for sometime too. Brilliant stuff.

484. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #82446 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 10:55 am

And you have consistently screamed bloody murder whenever I speak of steps that are essential to preserve it.

That is not why I have screamed bloody murder. I am appalled because your solution involves a genocidal culling exercise, with you estimating casualties on "our" side running into millions, I'd be interested in what you think the casualties on the other side would be. You are on record as having posted this, and similar deranged opinons all over the site.

Thats clearly insane, although as I've kindly pointed out, I see where you're hysterics are coming from, and certainly you are not the only one being panicked in this way.

We are unlikely to see eye to eye on this, but I'm happy to pop back and forth for a while. This is an important issue, and we need to tease out the specifics of your "policy".

485. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #82400 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 8:22 am

Talking about patting oneself on the back. You are a noxious little opportunist, leveraging on the suffering of these people to score your point.

Suprise!! We know these things have happened, yet somehow we can keep our heads and recognise genocide is not a sensible response. Save your denials for the war crimes tribunal, your posts are crystal clear.

I'm angry about this, but I'm equally disgusted by you. However, I agree that the politicians that defend this need a good kick up the arse. It is an outrageous attack on freedom of speech, and it should be resisted. Let me know when the next protest occurs in Gothenburg (or Copenhagen, it's not that far), and I'll join you.

486. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #82385 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 8:09 am

15. Comment #81889 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 25, 2007 at 11:07 am

Must you be an ass? I've consistently said that freedom of speech is a bedrock issue.

I just don't endorse your "final solution" for the problem, OK? Can we leave it at that and have the good sense to agree were we ... you know ... actually agree? Just fake the nuance, if you can't actually grasp it.

That said, it absolutely concerns me to see brave muslims stepping up to the plate and exercising their right to freedom of speech and not being supported. Downright stupid and self defeating to leave the very people we should be helping, twisting in the wind.

487. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #82319 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 26, 2007 at 3:43 am

#82306 by Bonzai

I have never heard any religious moderate saying point blank that all faiths have to be respected. I challenge you to show me any Christian who is not a member of the Westeboro Baptist Church who insists that we should respect Phelps because of his faith.

I'm pretty sure you are right. It's not a continuum, but a series of overlapping sets. However, the primary point still stands.

When I was a fundamentalist, there were fundamentalists I agreed with, and some that I didn't. I considered abortion a sin, but couldn't stretch to bombing clinics myself, but I could sympathise with a fundamentalist who would endorse such actions.

As I became more moderate, my universal "set" widened, it did so more in one direction than another, but nonetheless, views I had once held as acceptable or at least defensible in the context of religious conviction, were rarely removed from the set.

When I eventually gave up my faith, a massive chunk of previously acceptable behaviours quickly became unacceptable. With the justification of religious conviction removed, they fell into the category of dangerously deranged behaviour, as opposed to principled conviction.

Curiously, the more moderate you are the harder it becomes to outright reject other people of "faith", your very moderation has come about through a process of relentless inclusion, often over years or decades of personal growth. Worse still, one is often left with a sneaking admiration of people with such unshakeable "faith".

So from the inside looking out, with myself as a single datapoint, moderates are a problem. If you think your faith and convictions deserve respect, then it's pretty akward to insist that those of others don't, especially when a bald reading of the holy texts supports their interpretation and not yours.

488. American kids, dumber than dirt: Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history

Comment #81681 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 25, 2007 at 3:07 am

Finally! An area where GWB is a frontrunner. The leader in the Olympics of dumb, why am I not surprised ....

489. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #81676 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 25, 2007 at 3:01 am

Well this is clearly appalling, but depressingly familiar. We have heard it all before. These are exactly the kind of people who we should be bolstering, protecting and actively promoting, not ignoring.

I cannot imagine the mind set that would turn a blind eye to this lunacy:-(

490. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #81261 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 24, 2007 at 2:05 pm

The actions of totalitarians have far more in common with religious, rather than secular values.

Do not question the leader, submit unthinkingly, ethics are what the authority says they are, or else. There is no external moral benchmark.

These are the catchphrases of totalitarians through the ages. In the religious context the leader is God, the authority is the Bible and the "or else" the Inquisition. In a secular context the leader may be Hitler, the authority "Main Kampf" and the "or else" the Gestapo.

The root problem, is that Dogma and Ideology which must be obeyed without question, lead inevitably to horrors. The precedents, both religious and secular are legion. Religion is merely a subset of the primary concept. The antidote, is genuine free thought, skepticism and critical thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmsis-motuY

491. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81230 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 24, 2007 at 1:08 pm

I giggle like a school girl in anticipation of Hitchens savaging some unsuspectng theist, but he seemed a little rough around the edges here.

However, the original article completely misrepresented the exchange, given the environment, he more than held his own.

Still, the McGrath thing was glorious. I'd love to see another one of those.

492. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #81212 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 24, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Of course, I am aware that noone can. Noone even tries to answer my question. I notice at the end of brian's screed he says 'time to make a plan' but gives no idea, none, of what that plan involves.

Well it's complicated. More complicated than killing everyone that disagrees with you certainly.

I've posted these before, you may have missed them. You may want to skip to the third one, it's a summary. Viewing the content of all 3 may actually render you partially blind, with intermittent paralysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98ScgQPt66E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1eEoTJ7hZc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRyU7BnkQLY


I also floated the idea of the US and EU forming a democratic core in the last post.

In fact my position can be simply summed up as agreed law with the whole machinery of law enforcement to back it up, that focuses on the individual not nation states. Just like law works ... everywhere it works.

Finally the piece below has been particuarly influential on my thinking. Whats good for the goose ....

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed16.htm

You are not the only one who is a fan of the American constitution and system of government. I'm just not dogmatically enslaved to the messanic idea of American exceptionalism. A bit of political religion you seem to have embraced with fanatical fervour.

No special deals, no opt outs. Not even for Americans. Thats the hard part.

493. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #81173 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 24, 2007 at 10:35 am

The Enlightenment model that is enshrined in the founding documents of the United States is the only game left in town. Democratic republicanism coupled with capitalism is the only revolution that has worked.

Wow. You've got it bad.

You persist in mischaracterising my position. Let me have another go though.

I've managed to get my head around your reasons for wanting to pre-emptivley kill millions. You really think we are in some kind of desperate struggle to the death. OK, we get it. You're obviously wrong, but I accept your solution as rational in the context of what is going on in your head.

I also agree that the UN is not the answer to this particular crisis or the extensive list of horrors you've trotted out. Yep, it's not perfect, not by a long shot.

However, you are completely off your rocker if you think an American Hegemony, Dictatorship, Empire, call it what you like, will be tolerated for any length of time. They (Empires) never are, eventually they fall or implode or the wheels come off somehow. That is a guaranteed route to disaster, and we have plenty of precedent to back that up. Lets avoid that one like the plague, because it is politically and socially toxic.

The more long lived political constructs are where people come to terms with one another and arrange an agreed structure, like the greek city states, or the romans (pre empire), or the blizzard of Indian statlets and principalities that coalesced to form India, or the US itself, or the EU. There are plenty of examples of such successful enterprises. The US was certainly one of the better ones, but they did have a savage war (one of the worst ever on a % of population basis, I think) to consolidate those gains, and the jury is still out. It's only been a few hundred years.

Heck, if continuity, territorial integrity, standard of living and sheer scale, is your measure, the Chinese have us all beat. After all, they been leading the pack in all of those indicators for most of the last 3000 years.

Sometimes the emergence of a state or political system involves no violence, a bit of violence, or a lot of violence. I think we have a wealth of information to learn from now, and hey, if we had the US system, with adequate representation by population as an agreed solution for global governance, I'd happily sign up to that. However, and pay attention, because here is the problem, most Americans wouldn't.

Somehow they've got the idea, that they'll just get to drive this sucker forever now, with the rest of us relegated to various levels of noble, or serf.

Meaning they simply dictate (yes there's that word again) policy, overriding the entire rest of the world. Well I'm sorry. I don't accept that, I will not play the sycophant for any would be dictator state. Which for all your bluster and posturing is exactly what you are, a sycophant. Look that up.

A fair global society will not be easy to negotiate, but the US together with the EU have never been better placed to form an attractive democratic core to draw other states in. But it certainly won't work if one particular state awards itself a veto over everyone else. One of the dumber elements of the UN I might add.

As a namby, pamby hand wringing pacifist, I can tell you that won't wash. How do you think the 1.3 billion Chinese feel, or the 100 million Turks? Or the billion + Indians? Nope, the general consensus is going to be that you can take your Hegemony and shove it as far up your arse as it is likely to go, and perhaps even a little further. Thats just what people are like, they will insist on a fair deal:-)

So a fair deal it will have to be, whatever form that eventually takes. We've done it in the US, the EU and India, by some accounts democracies (or near democracies) now incorporate more than 60% of the worlds population. We are winning this thing, and NOW you want to throw all the pieces up in the air?

We can get a global accomodation which is acceptable, and we will. Or we'll die. If the kind of sheer bloody mindedness for which you are the poster boy, doesn't get us, then our luck will just run out one day. Someone will push the wrong button, misinterpret an instruction, and it'll be curtains. It's not like that hasn't already almost happened, several times.

It's just silly to run that risk in perpituity. Time to make a plan, which ideally doesn't involve killing most of the muslims in the world.

494. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80909 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 23, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Aaaand... straight back to fantasy, eh brian You're consistent in that respect too. Let's see now:

Nuance is NOT your strong point:-)

Boy, you and the EU have issues. In the first instance, it does have a parliament duly elected by the citizens where the representation is weighted by population. Something the US senate could learn from. Secondly although the commissioners are not elected, they are appointed by the duly elected representatives of the various states. Not perfect, but no worse than the electoral college for example.

Every legislative and decision making body in the EU has a path (albeit sometimes convoluted) back to the citizens. In much the same way as US citizens moan about Washington, EU citizens moan about Brussels, and good on us, it's all that ever makes politicians pay attention.

So, you've just made a bit of a fool of yourself here. You clearly only have a vague grasp of how the EU functions, and while it is far from perfect, and there is much that could be improved, to describe it as you have done, was just silly and ill informed.

Regarding the UN, you are certainly closer to the mark. Nonetheless, what a deeply despondent personality this betrays!!! This depression and sense of impending doom that seems to pervade and inform your gloomy, yet curiously näive, one dimensional outlook. Try and look on the bright side once in a while, if you just don't have the serotonin levels, for Christs sake take a pill.

Yes the UN has terrible problems, but it was an attempt to address the issues of "who decides", that arguably may have prevented major conflict in the last 60 years. The EU is definitivley a much better, but still imperfect, shot at the same thing.

Yet both are so vastly superior to the option of killing everyone that disagrees with one. No?

Sure, states in their formation sometimes go through terrible upheavel, but they don't always. Every example provides much to learn from, and ways to improve the next iteration, pitfalls to avoid. The US was modeled on the experiments of the Greeks and Romans wasn't it? I wonder how you would have greeted the first Athenian legislative bodies. With a big moan and an annoying whine I expect.

Do you think humans will be at war forever? Do you really expect a nation state representing less than 5% of humanity to dictate to the other 95%+ indefinetly? Come now, that is truly infantile. When has that ever worked out?

If every about attempt to build something were to terminate in in a tantrum about how "It just isn't perfect!!", we'd still be banging rocks together. Look, we managed to squeak through the cold war, and we learnt a lot doing that. We'll hopefully squeak through this one too, and with luck come out with something better than the UN and without needing a billion dead to goad us into action. I'm hopeful:-)

Cheer up. Get laid. Watch a movie. A funny one in which no one gets killed. Really. I'm starting to worry about you.

495. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80850 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 23, 2007 at 7:37 am

So, my point was that if a call for 'international law' is to be more than a masturbatory fantasy, it is a de facto call for American hegemony.

Really? What is the "hegemony" in the EU? Somehow nearly 30 independent nation states, some of them previous bitter enemies, some large and powerful, some ludicrously tiny, seem to have managed to develop a mutually agreed system that does not require unilateral hegemony. Huh.

Global law requires a willingness to pool sovreignity, and willingly subordinate some decision making to majority votes. Every nation state in existence has passed through this phase, as have the EU, US and India, arguably super federations, rather than distinct nation states.

Now we need to go global. There is nothing new here, except the scale. It displays a depressing lack of imagination to consider an American dictatorship, as the only possible route to global peace.

However, you're certainly consistent. Unilateral violence is clearly your hammer, and every problem you see is a nail. Try and broaden the 'ol mind there. This might help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98ScgQPt66E

496. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80764 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 23, 2007 at 2:15 am

Everyone here seems to believe that a moral principle can enforce itself, that it can exist independently. Is this correct?

Well no, I think it is safe to say that absolutely no one here believes that. Only an idiot would believe that. You really are the master of what I like to call the "bleeding obvious".

This just exposes your thinking more clearly. You see this as an existential struggle to the death, it's not, because we have the bulk of the money, weapons, political power and technology. See now you've got me doing it!!!

But OK, I'll concede the following. From your perspective your proposal is rational. If I believed the same thing, in essence that millenia of dragging ourselves up by our boot straps was seriously endangered, that failure to act NOW would result in more deaths later, I'd be on the barricades with you.

I don't though, for the very brief, but I think utterly compelling, reasons I've outlined above. There is a religious analouge here. Specifically the belief in hell. In much the same way as the theist must consider why I find the threat of eternal torment so unlikely as to be dismissed out of hand, you must also consider why I find your concerns similarly flawed. Getting this wrong puts me and hundreds of my immediate family at risk, yet I remain stubbornly unconvinced.

The other strand of your thinking relates to what will happen if "they" get a nuke, and use it on "us". Won't we go bonkers and wipe them off the face of the Earth? Here, you do have a point, and it is a risk.

However it is a risk that all parties share, "we" for obvious reasons, and "they" because of our potential response. You want to ameloriate the risk to "us" by pre-emptivley pushing the brunt of pain onto "them". This illustrates the us them equation that features so pervasivley in your thinking in action again. I think however, that even this calculation is wrong because the intial risk has been hopelessly overstated.

Here are the three reasons I think it a small risk.

1) I do attribute rationality to most actors, and especially actors in leadership. Cynicism about the religion embraced by the people has a millenia long history of precedent amongst the "ruling class" and some of that precedent comes from the Islamic world. I mean if they really believed all this stuff, wouldn't restoring the "Caliphate" be childs play?

2) The potential genocidal response to a nuclear attack particularly on an American city has got to give even the most deranged pause for thought. Remember most actors are rational within the context of their world view. People in leadership have to interact, convince and articulate themselves daily. So is the eradication of Iran worth say 10 million americans, 20 million? I don't think anyone in leadership in Iran (or anywhere in the muslim world) is seriously embracing that calculation.

3) For the reasons cited above, not just "our" security services are desperate to avert this horror, but so are "theirs". This leaves the real nut jobs very little room for maneouver, and concern on this front is universal.

Maybe that was just two reasons.

Look I really don't think you are crazy, but you'r e not doing your sums on this one. I stand by my "bloody chunks of shoppers" comment. It is really going to take some serious and persistent social breakdown, directly in Europe, to convince me that we are in a fight to the death here.

497. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80739 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 22, 2007 at 10:51 pm

A final thought ... Richard may not be too happy with this being said, but I think a time is coming when he will have no choice but to distance himself from some of the pronouncements by his allies.

Exactly. How are these calls for war (not quite genocide, but these things can morph awfully quickly) not exactly the kind of morally reprehensible actions that Christians trot out as examples of the very kind of things that atheists do?

Oh and it just occurred to me while reading RB's post, .... Are we supposed to attack Turkey too, one of NATO's largest militaries? You know, I've had this completely ingroup feeling about them until just now. But yeah, those guys are Islamers too!!

Or are they expected to sit on the sidelines while we ... ah .... subdue their co-religionists? They are part of the Axis of Islam, strictly speaking we should go after them. Maybe once we've trimmed 'em down to size, then we can let them in the EU?

Gah .....

498. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80655 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 22, 2007 at 2:02 pm

You smear me as desiring the deaths of millions. As though knowing what is inevitable is the same thing as desiring it. As though seeing an aproaching storm is the same as having caused it.

This is so unfair. Tsk. Tsk, nothing is "inevitable", not least kicking off WW III. I don't need to smear you, your own words condemn you.

By which I mean with fewer than a million casualties on our side. That means getting real. (My italics)

I'm assuming you're expecting to inflict exponentially higher casualties on the "enemy", so where is the smear? Am I misreading you? Is it that you don't desire it? Well the Buddha might have something to say about that, you seem pretty damn keen to me.

In your own way, you consider yourself a rational actor. All mass murders have justified their actions in much the same messianic and urgent tone that you use here. I guess we can consider ourselves fortunate indeed that your activites appear restricted to ranting about the end of civilisation on web sites. I'm just saying you're ... you know ... nuts. Given an objective reading of the realities that is.

One example. The US invades Iran, or nukes them. What will the Pakistanis do? Or even the Russians, or the Chinese? What about Taiwan, or any of a dozen other disputed zones in the world? Did you just skip 20th century history completely? When something like this is kicked off, we've no idea where it will go, and that is exactly the point. Do you think the Germans imagined, on the day that France fell, that a few short years later their country would be pounded into rubble and millions of them would be very, very dead? Yet it seemed like such a great idea at the time. Didn't it? Are you just oblivious to the Turkish troops massing on Iraqs northern border? Christ on a crutch, you want to START this party?

Human beings came out of WWII with a clear grasp of the realities and horrors of war. Those people created the UN, a radical and unprecedented pooling of soverignity for the time. Laid the foundation for the EU, the most successful mutually agreed confederacy of nation states the world has ever seen.

I don't know. Perhaps you are right. Maybe we need a reminder of how bad it can be to kill off all the war mongers and get us to the next level, but wouldn't it be cool if we could get there without killing 50 million people? So much more civilized, and wouldn't it be fun to do something different this time?

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, as long as you don't have me and mine rounded up and killed for ours ... but thats the problem see ... you don't draw the line at that, do yah? First they came for the radical muslims .... see above for details. Good night.

499. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80621 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 22, 2007 at 10:55 am

We've had this out before and very little has changed in our positions.

I would however dispute that your view is shared by billions around the world. Perhaps a few tens of millions of the more bloodthirsty and reactionary westerners.

Your position is predicated upon the idea that we are existentially at risk, and if we were I'd be on board, but this is clearly nonsense. The most casual glance at the relative strength of the two "sides" exposes this carnard at once. We are not remotely existentially threatened, which completely collapses your position, expressiable as a simple equation, 1 of "us" = X of "them". I'm guessing X is in the hundreds? Let me know if I'm being uncharitable:-)

Basically, you are ok with incinerating millions of innocent (yes innocent by any reasonable definition) people because of maybe? What self serving rubbish. Dialouge and restraint, especially from our position of unparalleled power is not just the ethical choice, but the rational one. Particularly taken from the perspective that all the lives "in play" are equal.

I can only stress again ... I don't believe you have a real concept of what you are proposing, although you like to sound bloodthirsty, there is still something abstracted and unreal about your formulations. That is perhaps the kindest thing I can say.

There is also something tragically comical about claiming to be upholding the values of the enlightenment while simultaneously, I mean in the same post, calling for the executions of people you disagree with. Jesus, you've got some balls, I'll give you that:-)

And yes it is quite clear to me that humans can be bloodthirsty and murderous, I need only examine my own emotional response at the thought of harm to my daughter. However, this is emphatically not what you are saying. You are systematically dehumanising 1.5 billion people, making them less than human. Deranged animals to be culled, before they present a serious threat.

Tell me I'm wrong.

For example : , to be making a very serious error in attributing rationality to Islamic maniacs

Yet I do consider most muslims rational actors. This claim of collective derangement is likewise mutually visited upon the various sides in any conflict. Your entire repetoire is tiresomly familiar, you probably just flipped through a copy of "Demagouges through the ages" and lifted the speeches whole:-)

I'm sorry, but it's going to take more than your penchant for hysterical hyperbole to stampede me into endorsing or cheerleading a mass cull of the "mad muslims", or indeed any group of fellow humans. I and my family will take our chances with sanity.

500. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80583 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 22, 2007 at 8:31 am

If we see a mushroom cloud appear over a major Western city, which view is likely to prevail? Mine or yours? History gives the answer. In such a situation, it is my view that will prevail.

I'm quite certain yours will prevail at that stage, my concern is that you seem terribly keen to have it prevail first, because of what might happen.

As regards your jibe about "my" people, all humans are "my" people, not just those to whom I'm related by blood, nation, village, skin colour, language, culture or continent ... whatever arbitrary demarcation you care to draw.

I think the route I have outlined, has plenty of precedent behind it, as does yours. However, although mine is likelier to take longer, it is also likelier to have a much lower body count.

You have an unnatural view of those that have embraced Islam. As if they were the Borg from star trek. Monstrous, inhuman, unstoppable. It is a pretty familiar dehumanisation of the enemy prior to slaughtering them in large numbers. Human beings, even those that embrace stupid, bronze age myths are not like that, and whats more, they never have been like that.

These monsters exist only in the imagination of those who urgently need a justification for the unconscionable.