Watch as I destroy them again
Reader comment on item: How to End Terrorism[: With Moderate Islam]
in response to reader comment: proven what?

Submitted by a Filipino liberal (Philippines), Dec 29, 2006 at 00:38

You just don't give up, do you.

"anyone who still thinks communism is the way should be pitied for his lack of knowledge of politics and history."

Oh, so not me then. Because as already explained to you (not like it'll go through your skull thickened by years of right-wing indoctrination, but there you go, that just goes to show you how persevering I am in dealing with hopeless cases) I'm not a communist.

"silly kids from the 3rd world whining about a system that collapsed on its butt have all the rights to be ridiculed, possibly publicly. Communism murdered 100 milion people. And it's still killing nowadays. In some countries of the east europe side they are planning on BANNING even the term. So silly philipino boys like yourself would pay a fine for even mentioning your beloved word "communism". They are thinking on banning it such as NAZISM is BANNED in germany. Got it? ... Those people have experienced HELL and survived and surely would gladly kick your butt for undervaluing their sufferings by pushing a criminal agenda."

Hey, haven't you heard that the terms "First World" and "Third World" shouldn't be used anymore? A large group of sociologists and others around the world are saying the use of these terms should be discouraged, because 1) It reeks of arrogance 2) It's condescending 3) It makes it look as though "First World nations are ahead (in first place) of the "third-place" nations just because they're "developed". If you ask me, that would not be my first criteria in detemining whether a country is good.

And secondly,...you are wrong in simply declaring that anyone has the rights (wrong usage, it should be the ridiculers who have the right, not the ridiculed) to be ridiculed. And who gave you the right to say that?

I've heard this statistic ratted out by conservatives so often it's about to become an inside joke. Where's your proof?

I just thought you weren't racist against Filipinos. Guess I was wrong. Now you have nothing going for you. Apparently, Filipinos are only good, when they're living in First World countries, otherwise they're 3rd World scumbags.

Lastly, as if you care about those people you say suffered under communism. You don't. They're just tools to bolster your arguments.

"No, and thats another proof of how you don't know anything about politics and political system."

How is it proof, fool? At least I asked whether you were a fascist first, not like you, who called me a communist immediately. NOW who doesn't know anything? Owned!

"islamophobic, made-up term by PC media, communists and whining muslims to describe who points out that they are not the master race as they think they are.

And yes, I don't care about the sufferings of a supremacist group of people driven by the aim of annihilating anyone else that doesn't think like they do."

Oh, you mean just like "Islamofascist" was made up? I get it. And the master race? Wouldn't it be whites and Jews who think that way? You're proof already.

And this second paragraph here - you just proved my worst fears right. You actually, openly stated that you don't care about the sufferings of an entire group of people. And I remember in another post on this topic you said something about wiping out Muslims entirely, but that "it's a bad idea as it raises questions of genocide". This goes far beyond just talking about ideas. I could report you to Interpol for this. Advocating the destrustion of an entire race of people is a crime, you know. susan, a mastermind of genocide?

Nah. As much as you want to do it you can't. You don't have the power to do any of this. So I'm actually not worried at all. All you can do is rant and spout your venom on Internet boards, like Adolf Hitler before he became Fuhrer. The only difference between the two of you is that unlike him, you can never become that powerful. So just carry on as you are. You can't do anything.

"here again, your deep ignorance of the basic facts of hystory. Too bad your 3rd world country cannot provide a good history lesson.

Here's the list of empires by landmass, the arab one is ranked pretty high, and if by western you put together empires that have nothing to do with each other (for example, british empire+spanish empire) you are laughable."

Now comes the fun part. This is where you made so many mistakes that you'd be singularly shameless to still talk nack to me when I'm through with this. First, some more racist poison from Lady susan. History happens to be my best subject (that and English, which is why my English is clearly better than yours, even though I'm not a native speaker.) And I happen to think my knowledge of history is better than yours too, thank you very much.

Now to the really fun part. You say that the Arab empire is ranked pretty high, but even then I see that the British Empire is the largest world empire, on its own, even without adding other Western empires as you accuse me of. So you have been omitting data that doesn't agree with your thesis, while including a link, so I can see it? Not very smart. If you're going to lie, you should do it properly.

And as a matter of fact, yes, I have been adding up all the Western empires. So British + Spanish + French + Portuguese + Italian + German. (These are the European countries that had colonial empires). Even without including Russia, which some people don't think is part of the West even though Russians are whites, the combined Western empire is significantly larger than any other empire in history. Why do you say it's laughable to add them together? I did say that the WEST conquered a larger part of the world than any other empire, so naturally I would add them all together. Tell me, what part of adding all the Western empires together to conclude that the West took the largest part of the world is hard to understand?

Besides, when you're boasting about the West's achievements, you include things invented by Westerners in all Western countries (British scientists, French scientists, German scientists, etc.) as one group. And now suddenly you don't want to count all their empires as one? So basically, you only do things when they're convenient. Conservatives are masters of convenience. Ah, hypocrites. "Basic facts of history"? Yeah. Right.

"Second of all, western imperialism brought surely more prosperity than anything brought by muslims. Muslims are all parasites that need a living body to suck life from. That's what they did since the beginning of time. Their religion forbids any kind of critical thinking therefore all inventions, discoveries, art, literature has been done by NON-muslim people under muslim rule. Then the muslims benefitted from it.

Evidence is places like anatolia, when deprived of jews+christians it became a swamp called turkey, a 3rd world country by any standard. Still today the richest families in those countries are jews and christians.

Same thing is happening in lebanon. Places like thailand being full of industrious and hard working people (ethnic chineses) are rising up with tourism but the muslim parts of those countries (pattani province) is a slump of illiteracy, war, unemployment.

What we see now, it's just the large scale reproduction of what was in the past. Arab imperialism merely stole stuff, didn't bring anything positive to the already advanced civilization it destroyed."

Oh, Western imperialism brought prosperity, did it now? You're treading on dangerous ground there, sue. The old "white man's burden" argument again, huh? The most profitable burden in the world.

Come on now, sue, we both know that the West had purely selfish reasons for colonizing the rest of the world, and for you to deny it is even more evil. The West didn't bring us any prosperity we could not have achieved on our own. They actually stole from us. They stole our time, our people, the fruits of our labor, our resources, our land, and most of all, our freedom. And now the West claims to be a beacon of freedom and democracy. The biggest hypocrisy ever. So you'll forgive me if I'm somewhat skeptical of the West and particularly America's claims to moral ascendancy.

Then, you reheat the oft-repeated argument on this board that Muslims contributed nothing original to society. This argument is so obviously false and stupid it's a wonder that it keeps being repeated. I don't even have to dignify it with a response.

"I usually don't apologize when there's no need to. I usually don't apologise to people that are not willing to apologise for doing the very same stuff, just MORE and MORE FREQUENTLY. Then if you think that by apologising the muslims in mindanao will give you an award, you are more deluded than I thought."

You just hate apologizing for mistakes. Just say it like that. And if you think that Muslims inflicted more suffering on people than the West did, you're wrong. And I don't think I'll get an award for apologising to the Muslims. I do it because it's the right thing to do. Oops, I forgot, you can't understand that, can you? Like a true capitalist, you would only do somethig if there's something in it for you. "Why the hell would anyone do the right thing in exchange for nothing at all!? Why!?"

"very wrong. The greeks of those times, the egyptians of THOSE times were FAR MORE ADVANCED than the barbaric muslims. And I use the term barbaric loosely because the real barbarians (vandals, huns, vikings) were far more civilized than the muslims."

Oh no, not this crap again. You are completely ignorant of history. During the Middle Ages in Europe, when most Europeans either lived a hard life of toil as serfs on a manor or lived in vermin-infested towns where the houses were all right beside each other and hung out into the street; where you couldn't walk through the street without stepping on garbage or offal or have human excrement fall on you from the houses above; where the stench was so strong you could faint from it; where hordes of pigs were let loose in the streets of large towns at night to eat the piles of garbage, it was the only way to clean it; where millions of Europeans died from bubonic plague; where European barber-doctors thought that the cure for plague was bleeding the person to death; where witches were burned at the stake; where mobs of Europeans slaughtered Jews believing they had caused the Black Death; where fanatical Christians whipped themselves hoping to bring God's anger away from them; where having sex for peasants meant a roll in the hay which was the floor of most European houses; where everyone, even nobility, ate with their hands from wooden trenchers or used a slice of bread as a plate; where all Europeans believed taking a bath was unhealthy (as far as the 17th and 18th Centuries, the Sun King, Louis XIV, only took 2 baths in his whole life); where everything revolved around the Church, and a man was arrested for saying the earth revolved around the sun.

Yes, the Muslims were more advanced and lived more comfortably than their Christian contemporaries at this time.

"1) if you think i am impressed by a 3rd worldist nostalgic of communism, apologetic of mohammeddans thinks of me, you are oh so wrong"

Oh, I had no intention of praising you, you don't have to worry about that!

Oh, and let's see: "3rd Worldist", "nostalgic of communism", and finally "apologetic of mohammedans". That's three insults (from your point of view) and untrue on top of that. It was fun when it started, but it's getting old, you know?

"2) LOL, anti-muslim racist, as if being muslim is a race, check a dictionary and see what "race" means"

This isn't the first time I've seen this, classic conservative defense. Mr. Pipes had an article on this too. And my answer is this: Why are anti-Semitic people called racists? Isn't Judaism a religion?

*the sound of silence*

"not by SOME MUSLIMS. By ALL MUSLIMS. When you have a holy book dictating the superiority of a race (the arab race) and in wider terms of a religion (islam) over the others and you have NOBODY in that religion wanting to change it, because the koran is the immutable word of god then you should understand who the real racist is, but you prefer to call me racist as you know i am too civilized to do anything. Your brothas muslims instead will gladly slit your throat."

By SOME Muslims... Oh, and there, you proved me right to call you a racist by showing you're anti-Arab, not just anti-Muslim. People like you are so easy to manipulate.

And you, civilized? When hell freezes over, maybe.

Lastly, I'm a Catholic Christian, but if you want to continue spouting falsehoods, fine; suits my purposes. It's on you.

"No, you don't care, you are just a commie whining about nothing, while the real tragedies are under your eyes. It's soooo cool for a commie nostalgic whining about the sins of the west, rather than facing the real enemy."

Blah blah blah, rant rant rant, yada yada yada. Your answer to everything is to call me a commie, isn't it? And why do you think you know what I think better than I do myself? Bit arrogant that, isn't it? As if you care, you hypocrite.

"bla bla bla, guess what? they are practicing your beloved communism. Anyway, I merely proved that myanmar and probably others with it, are a 3rd world country with NO other foreign country "stealing" from them. They are poor for lack of democracy or a proper government.

This is NOT the west's fault."

Since you have no answer to this entire part of my argument, you just ignored it completely. Some crcaks appearing in your armor there, I see. "OMG, I'll just say 'bla bla bla', I can't answer any of this so I'll just treat it like it's nonsense without actually disproving it."

Not smart, sue. Not clever.

Since when was helping a multinational company communism? Or has the definiton changed? Or did you simply not read this part of the post very well at all, you fool?

And how in the world did you prove that Myanmar had no foreign country stealing from it? I just said that Unocal was taking Myanmar's oil (with the govvernment's help) and then you say this? Are you really obtuse, or are you just playing dumb?

"I said the sentence in general terms, but if you feel it can apply to your LACK of knowledge in everything, then go with it."

Lady susan's definition of "lack of knowledge": Anything I don't agree with.

"There is no evidence of racism in the west to philipinos. Your brothers muslims are behaving so bad that every stupid nowadays can see who are the communities causing problems (muslims) and the ones NOT causing problems (non-muslim asians, chineses, east europe, south americans). After 9-11 and the other gifts from muslims, the rates of non-muslim immigrants have risen up greatly, we came to the point that being a black from africa is NOT a problem anymore if you are non-muslim.

Many politicians are calling for immigration from non-muslim countries, no matter how poor. That's a big improvement"

Evidence aside from you? Just type "anti-Filipino racism" in Google and you'll get all the evidence you want. How about US radio talk show host Mark Williams awarding his Froggy Award (given for anti-American behavior) to the people of the Philippines for pulling out of Iraq, as chicken and monkey sounds played in the background? How about the 7-year old Filipino child living in Canada, who was reprimanded by a public-school supervisor for eating with a spoon and fork, the usual way we eat in the Philippines? How about a personal story I heard, about a group of Filipino tourists who were visiting the Acropolis in Greece, and were treated suspiciously by Greek security personnel (more than the other tourists) because they "looked like terrorists"?

The Filipinos were all Christian.

You are an ignoramus, once you've done some more research on this topic, come back.

"first take care of the people in your own country, then when in USA, UK, France, Spain etc every single person will be fed, healthy and happy, start to LOOK outside. That's not being selfish, that's being practical, fair, just and moral. The opposite of being selfish is stealing the food from the dish of your own children to boost your ego in saying you are feeding some poor in guyana."

I agree. And I see that there are poor even in the US and Europe. Are you helping them? Because I am participating in charity programs for people here in the Philippines. Unlike you and other Westerners, I practice what I preach.

"it has been proven that there's a link between the two, both represent a failed system that proved to be damaging and unfit. So my doubts are justified. The perfect sintex of the two is a leftist muslim apologist."

I find this strange, considering that historically, communism and Islam have always been at odds with each other. Why do you think the mujahideen fought the Soviets in Afghanistan? Why do you think that Saddam, a secular socialist leader, was on bad terms with al-Qaeda? No, you just hate both Islam and communism, so to make it easier for you to hate them, you lump them together. No, there is no perfect sintax(sic) between the two.

"well, if you think that "communist" and "muslim" are insults that's your perception. Granted if someone would call me muslim or communist, I'd take it really bad, but if you are a muslim apologist and a nostalgic of communism I don't see where the insult is.

Is monarchic an insult? Is presbiterian an insult?"

This is the best part. This is where you demonstrate just how illogical you are. If I am a Muslim apologist or a nostalgic of communism as you say, then why would I think being called a "Muslim" or a "communist" was an insult? Owned!

I don't think being called a Muslim or communist is an insult per se, just that it's not true, and moreover, you intended it as an insult. Don't deny it; even if I don't see it as an insult you do, which is why you called me that. Don't try to hide behind ignorance, because I see right through you, sue.

"I call "muslim" the ones that are really muslims or behave like that, I call leftist/communists the ones behaving like communists. I call other names people behaving otherwise."

When did I behave like a Muslim?

"you don't have the ability to travel to some communist country and see how's life there?, I don't think north korea is far from where you live, also if you buy some books on pol pot, staling, gulags etc you can find some nice stories of how your "methods" of good communist government worked"

N. Korea is about 2000 miles from the Philippines, so it's pretty far. And you have the nerve to mention Pol Pot? The guy who was supported by the United States?

ooooh, here you cross the border

"so the invention of communism is FAULT of the diplomats travelling in north korea?

the people in north korea are starving because some diplomat is drinking wine in hotels?

I am sure you are able to blame communism in north korea to some western power or some past western civilization.

Get over it, the west (past AND present) is NOT the source of all evils and the 3rd worldists are not the source of all positive things. It's quite the contrary. Among its many cons free market+democracy has proven itself to be the only way possible, it's not the best, but for now it's the least bad.

If you think the islamic caliphate is the answer, prepare yourself to convert or die."

LOL, I don't think communism was invented by the diplomats, although communism DID originate in the West. And while the West is not the source of all evils, it is the source of most of them, especially for us "3rd Worldists"(sic).

And I don't think the Islamic caliphate is the answer, contrary to your belief, however, I will not let the Philippines be dominated by the West either.

As for free market+democracy, I agree with the democracy part, but democracy alone will not solve all social ills, and I think a completely free (unregulated and everything is open for exploitation) market is not a good recipe for creating a society where everyone is equal, or at least, where everyone lives comfortably. I think people should own private property and that things (but not everything) can be bought and sold by private individuals, but I believe the government should control and egulate this process. The government is on the side of, is doing it for the weaker, poorer, or more didpossessed individuals (because in a completely free market, capitalist society, it's "strongest-takes-all", ruthlessness is a necessary trait and the ones with the most money or possessions have an advantage). Some regulation, nationalization, and centralization is necessary. Because on the whole, I'd still rather that the government controls everything rather than corporations. Because no matter how authoritarian a government is, it is at least supposed to uphold the interests of the country's citizens, and you can hold them accountable for not doing so. On the other hand, corporations are not accountable to the people at all, and they (their internal structure) is hardly democratic. Most corporations are more authoritarian than any government, and their only duty is to thier shareholders. The whole reason for their existence, under current law, is to create the maximum profit, and if they have helped people it was only while pursuing their self-interest, not becase they care about those poeple. This is the way corporations were designed.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.