Plato, stop twisting facts
Reader comment on item: How the West Could Lose
Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Feb 18, 2007 at 20:50
Plato, I tire of your games. You keep twisting statements and facts and trying to confuse the issue. Let's look at your most recent transgressions. You wrote:
"Aren't we talking of some very ancient societies here."
There is a perfect example of your utter dishonesty in this argument. You constantly bring up the Native Americans, but when we bring up Islamic history, you dismiss it as "ancient history". And in doing so you miss the point...that Islam has been violent since day one.
"The Muslims are known to have treated their Christian and Jewish subjects a lot better than the Christians did the Jews or the Christian sects each other. That is the history I was referring to. Their history is not as you insist an unbroken shade of black."
Re-read that absurdity you just wrote. The Muslims "treated their subjects". Full stop. I don't give a damn how well they "treated their subjects". I consider being enslaved an act of war, I don't care how well treated I am by my captors. The very fact that they overran, enslaved, and relegated others to slavery status paints them black, regardless of how they treated their "subjects".
Perhaps you, Plato, don't mind being a worthless slave and a second class citizen, but I for one am perfectly willing to kill anyone who tries to enslave me.
"Your knowledge of history I am sure is superior to mine."
"But which countries have the Muslims invaded and conquored over the last 100 years or so."
Invaded? America, Britain, Italy, France, Russia, Australia...lots of places. Conquered? None yet, but that's what we're trying to avoid, now isn't it? Even so, look at how they are cowing those countries in Europe to cater to their Islamic nonsense.
"The demise of the Ottoman empire saw the emasculation of whatever military vigor the Muslims had."
"Militarily the Muslims are in the iron age."
That does not make them any less dangerous. Pakistan, as you know, has nukes. Iran is working on developing nukes. Al Qaeda is working on obtaining nukes. And they are all suicidal, murderous barbarians.
Not terrified, but realistic. Perhaps you are stupid enough to bury your head and pretend the threat isn't real. I cannot afford t be so stupid.
"Their religious leaders tell them that the science in the Koran tells them that the earth is flat (the Saudi imam), that the stars are Allah's missiles to drive away the devils trying to listen in on his conferences (the Koran), the sun sets in a muddy pool ,their universities discuss in all seriousness the importance of the niqab, whereas a lowly ranked university in your country has far more intellectual power and vigor than the entire Muslim world combined."
Again, another irrelevant argument from you. That does not diminish their ability to destroy. As someone once said, "Never under-estimate large masses of stupid people".
"You a country with a 12 trillion dollar economy, instead of leading the world seems intent on dominating it."
It's clear that you oppose my plan merely because you're an America-hater.
"For this you have created the bogeyman of the Muslim terrorist, based on Bin Laden, mosque and madrassa rantings, Saudi school texts,Taliban suicide bombings, all horriying collectively and separately, but pinpricks nevertheless. They are not even bogemen, they are strawmen."Plato, I thought you were doing this just to be annoying, but now I suspect you're just insane. America has created a strawman of Islamic terrorism? So all those suicide bombings in Israel are not real? All the genocide in Darfur and Sudan is not real? Amadmanjihad going on tv and saying that Iran will wipe Israel of the map is not real? These are all straw man arguments created by the USA?
You're not merely delusional, you are clearly insane.
"Did not Congress approve when Bush went to war. Did not Hilary Clinton vote for the war? What is Congress composed of. Liberals or Hawks?"
Nothing is quite so irritating to Americans as critical foreigners who think they understand our system better than we do. Stick to what you know, Plato. Do you think the "surrender first" Democrats got into office last year because most Americans support the war?
"Why is this irrelevant and not the history of the Muslims? How come you pick and choose what is relevant. Why are the atrocities committed by the Muslims in the past relevant and not the Christian ones."I've already explained this to you more times than I can count, and this is why you are either dishonest or have a crippling reading comprehension problem. Christianity had a violent period, but civilized itself and has remained civilized. Also, we are talking about dealing with the threat of Islam, not Christianity. You seem to believe that just because Christians committed atrocities in the past, that they have no business denouncing and defending against atrocities today. You clearly do not "get it" and I am tired of trying to explain this to you. By your seeming argument, no one is entitled to defend against anyone, simply because everyone has committed atrocities at some point in time. It's a ridiculous, absurd, and insane argument.
"Really? What if they refuse to sell you THEIR oil. Vaporise them?"
We gave them the know-how and the equipment to pump that oil. Hell, we gave them their countries! We owned Saudi Arabia and Iraq before they even existed as such! Let them give us back our equipment with interest, and pay us off for having raped the world over the oil barrel for decades and return those billions and billions of dollars in free aid that we gave them and we can call it even. If not, hell yes! Vaporize them and take the oil. Fair is fair!
"Anyway hardly any democratic country's leader has any fighting experience except maybe some fisticuffs in kindergarten. Several military dictators ruled in Pakistan and went to war with India and came off second best every time with Indian politicians who had not seen the business end of even a pistol leading them to victory. And one of them was a woman. So was Thatcher successful against the Argentinan military dictator. That argment does not hold water."
Again, the problem is that the politicians are directing the combat, not the generals. This is why we lost in Vietnam, and why we are doing so poorly in Iraq. Politicians should decide whether to go to war, but it should be the generals who execute the war. For example (and I have a picture of this), we targetted the Taliban leadership at a funeral, we had them in our sights and were about to blow them to hell, but some pinhead politician said "no" because it would be "disrepsectful" to bomb them at a funeral (for a terrorist no less!). So we missed a chance to take out half the leadership of the Taliban because we did not have a warrior executing the war, but rather a politician.
The argument does indeed hold water, because it has been proven in two wars to be the reason we lost.
"What, do you want a military dictatorship in the US. You seem to have no faith in the democratic heritage of your country."
No, I never said I wanted a military dictatorship. However, the Command In Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States should at least have some concept of combat! He should not have civilians with no combat experience and no understanding of the realities of war running the combat tactics and strategies of our forces. This is why we are not winning anymore. The president's job is to say to the military: "Here is your goal. Go accomplish it". Period. He should not have White House lawyers telling military commanders "Sorry, you cannot take out the Taliban leadership because we don't want to offend them by killing them while they're attending a funeral.". That's called insanity.
"As a democrat I am sure you would want to test your idea in the crucible of public opinion."
I'm no democrat, just as America is not democratic. We're a constitutional republic, and I am a Constitutionalist, not a democrat. And the problem is that our society is being inundated with propaganda and twisted to the point where the general public is too stupid to make decisions. When more people can name the Simpsons cartoon characters than the Chief Justices, we have problems. In order for an opinion to have merit, it must be an intelligent, informed opinion.
"The far-right probably thinks the liberals are hell bent on destroying your country."
And they'd be 100% correct!
"The Bible belt probably considers homosexual freedom a sure recipe for destroying the country."
Can't agree totally with the Bible belt, but I would agree that our society is becoming intensely immoral and depraved. We need to fix that.
"Can today's Muslims do anything about what their forebears did? There is nothing they can do about it except accept that their ancestors did it. "
Wrong. They can look at it, understand that it is evil, and reform their religion. Instead, they refuse to admit to any past crimes and instead lie and engage in revisionist history in order to re-write their atrocities into goodness. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
"You are pessimistic that they will ever accept that. I believe if presented properly they will accept it and are accepting it. Your refrain is today's Muslims are mirror images of their forefathers. That is our point of departure."
I am realistic, not pessimistic. Our "point of departure" is reality itself. You believe in some la-di-da fantasy world where Muslims are good, loving, peaceful people. You believe they're trying to reform. I, on the other hand, look at cold hard reality and see the fact that for every 1 Muslim you can show me who is truly reform-minded, I can show you 1,000 or perhaps 10,000 Muslims who are evil, violent, non-reformist. Your claim, your unrealistic belief that presenting them with evidence can reform them is disproved by every day reality, where the very very few aberrations who are preaching peace and reform are either killed or ignored.
"Rafts, Canada. From India, Philippines, Thailand wherever there are Muslims which is practically everywhere. Noah why can't you accept reality."
I can see that geography is another subject you flunked in school. Plato, precisely which border does America share with India, the Philippines, Thailand? I seem to remember America having two borders...one with Mexico, the other with Canada. The other two sides are bordered by vast oceans. You believe that Muslims are going to take a raft and cross over the stormy Atlantic to get to America? Muslims from Malaysia are going to take a raft and cross the Indian Ocean, around the Horn of Africa, up through the stormy Atlantic, past South America and up the coast to land in New York? I'd like to see that raft! Or are they going to go the other way and cross the Pacific? You're insane.
"You are living in a dream world where you are able to keep track of every Muslim who wants to get in and explode mass destruction devices in your country."
If we deny Muslims the ability to fly in from their homelands, and screen those coming in from other Western countries (who will clearly aid us in screening, as they will not want to incur both our wrath and the wrath of the isolated and agitated Muslims), then there is no problem.
"They stay out a hundred kilometres off shore and let the wind carry some hellish virus into the mainland."
Clearly, virology is not your strong suit either. Sigh.
"I know you will hit out blindly at all Isamic sounding countries and vaporise them for the greater good of mankind, especially of the American variety."
Without hesistation, apology, or regret. Absolutely.
"You seem to be quite sure Jordanian opinion is representative of Muslim opinion. Remember that a good number of Jordanians are actually displaced Palestinians. That tell you something?"
Yes, that you have your history backwards, as usual. Jordanians are not misplaced Palestinians. The so-called Palestinians are misplaced Jordanians. And yes, that is highly representative. Polls in other Islamic countries are also overwhelmingly negative. I already posted all that.
"I think you Americans are naive. If you take care of two countries, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia a good part of the terrorism problem will be solved."
Again, leave it to a clueless foreigner to try to tell America how to run its life [rolling my eyes]. You ignore Iran, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, which are also hotbeds of terrorism. And what do you mean by "take care of"? Do you propose I nuke Saudi Arabia and Pakistan off the map?
"And yet again you are willing to vaporise a goodly portion of humanity for the crime of a few."
See, here again you engage in dishonest, lies, and distortions. I do not acknowledge that Islam suffers from "the crimes of the few". You are delusional. When 88% of Jordanians favor violence and suicide bombing, how can you claim (with a straight face) that it suffers from the "crimes of the few"? As I said, you live in denial of reality.
"You plan to sequester your country from Muslims is impractical and a pipe dream."
On the contrary, it is a lot easier to do than you believe. But of course, when someone is as ignorant of geography as you clearly are, that makes the matter confusing for you.
"First, the phrase 'virtually insures' comes off so easily from your keyboard. Second, nuking population centres as though you are cauterising a wound. After reading the rest of it I had to rush to the sink and retch."
It's nice to know that Michel isn't our only resident drama queen [again rolling my eyes].
"Just about 100 million or so (but as it will never happen if my plan is implemented, don't worry?)."
I don't care if it's 100 million or 1.2 billion. Islam is the evil threat, they are the ones attacking and trying to dominate the world. If annihilation is their karma, so be it.
" How absurd do you think my idea is now?"
Yes, because the book you mention is a theory, and still in the developmental stage. On top of that, there are no physical viruses that can change thoughts and attitudes. You're just being silly.
"Not that I would like the creation of the virus I suggested."
I see. So you would be as strongly opposed to inventing a virus that would case Muslims to become peaceful as you are to nuclear holocaust? You're a strange, weak, and absurd person.
"Since you say 'many' of the generals how do you decide who those real warriors are? Or are you hinting that the warriors should be given a free run?"
Real warriors would be the ones with experience, with actual strategic and tactical training and experience. Yes, they would be given free run to execute the war. As president, I would tell my generals "capture Tehran" and expect them to formulate the plan as well as execute it. I would not have a White House civilian lawyer calling my generals and telling them "risk the lives of our brave soldiers and cancel that battle plan because we don't want to 'offend' the Muslims in Iran by bombing that mosque".
"Who decides who are the real American warriors. The public vote to decide which general has the most blood-curdling strategies?"
No, they'd be picked based on their knowledge and experience. How dense are you? You want to win wars, you put your best soldiers in charge.
"Now you spell it out (no guarantees)."
Try applying your absurd whining to your own absurd claims. Can you guarantee me that Islam is not going to try to dominate the USA? Can you guarantee me that Al Qaeda will not have some sleeper cells slip in a nuclear device and take out New York City? Can you guarantee me that Islam is going to peacefully reform itself?
See, I at least deal with reality and historical precedence. You engage in absurd fantasies that are in denial of reality and history. Which is why I dismiss you and Michel as fools.
"I will listen to reason if you come up with a reasonably brilliant plan. I don't see brilliance in a plan which had 20k casualties but could be a bit higher, maybe a 100 fold higher. That is about the exact figure of the Muslims you estimate are in the US. Yes I want it to be uworkable as long as you have such wildly differing casualty figures. How do I know it could not be a 1000 fold higher."
It can't be 1,000 fold since there are not that many Muslims in America!
You don't want to listen because you want to remain in your self-created fantasy world where reality is warped to fit your desires. You wish to retain your arbitrary and provably false views of history, current events, and reality. There's where your problem comes in, it's not my plan that is the problem.
"My reading comprehension course is coming along fine."
If that is true, then you are a liar who purposely misquotes, twists, and misrepresents others' arguments. Either way, you're not worth talking to anymore.
"Oh but you also say 800 million of those crawling would die out from the after effects. The final solution in its final ultra-modern form. Gas chambers are so passe'"
I'm convinced that you are a Muslim apologist, since all you do is whine about how Muslims are being mistreated. All they need to do is reform and denounce their evil, psychotic, depraved desire to destroy the West and crush it under the heel of an ISlamic caliphate and we can live in peace. They choose their destiny. I am totally open and in fact have stated that I far prefer a situation in which Islam reforms itself, denounces terror, and becomes civilized. However, I am also a realist who understands that is a pipe dream and who is not afraid to go to war and destroy the enemy if it comes to that. You on the other hand are a coward who prefers slavery to freedom if it means that you'd have to kill to retain your freedom. That sickens me.
"The Nazis watched the Jews die because of their race. You will watch Muslims die because of their belief."
The 50th example of your dishonesty and lies. The Nazis did not "watch the Jews die". They actively worked to annihilate them in a genocidal extermination program. I would watch Muslims die as a result of their attack on me and my country, as a result of their aggressions and attempts to destroy my society. You are again being dishonest and spewing propaganda by claiming that I would watch Muslims die "because of their beliefs". This is why talking to you is a waste. You're a compulsive liar who warps everything that is said by others and who consistently and grossly misrespresents the views of others in response. I am not offended by Muslims having different beliefs. Let them believe anything they want, but let them believe it in their own society and not come trying to impose it on my society. And if their belief system requires them to attack, destroy, dominate, and enslave my country, then yes, I would not hesitate to annihilate them with any means necessary. That's called self defense.
"I have serious doubts about that, but you are the expert."
You have "serious doubts" about anything that does not fit your insane, unrealistic and unfounded view of reality, and yet you admit to having no knowledge on which to back your claims. You have still, to this day, refused to generate a workable and realistic plan of your own. Which tells us much about you. You're a whiner, a whiner who fears strength, who fears those who are bold enough to protect what is theirs. You are the ideal dhimmi, just like Michel is. Weak, ignorant, and unrealistic.
"You also seem to have you forgotten that Islam has already got its hands on nukes?"
Pakistan can be taken out before they can use their nukes. I'm sure we can convince India to lend us a hand.
"It is not 100% certain but common sense tells you that America is rushing helter skelter towards disaster as long as there is a single Muslim within its borders as the Muslims are incubating the Hiroshima plot and the Holocaust plan. "
Not if they do not have the money, the backing, the contacts, the networdk to enact their plans. As usual Plato, you criticize, complain, and whine, but you demonstrate that you have no intelligence on which to draw from to back your claims and your criticisms.
"You had put them in the 'God forbid' category in your plan. Which is, oh so very reassuring. And you are certain Muslim countries are suicidal which is not reassuring if your plan calls for acting before the Muslims decide to commit suicide."
Need I spell this out for you? Apparently so. China and Russia are enemies. They (especially China) can be realistically suspected of deciding to finish us off once we're down, if they think they can do so with minimal retaliation. We surely don't want to go there. Yes, the Muslim countries are suicidal, but they cannot do anything to hurt us on that scale if we act now. Pakistan has nukes, but they're mainly pointed at India. Pakistan cannot survive a sneak nuclear attack by America and/or India.
"Oh, when any Muslim country shows what are suicidal tendencies in your estimation, put it out of its misery before they act on it."
When those suicidal Muslim countries have sworn to destroy us and are trying to acquire the capability to do so? Absolutely! Nuke them off the face of the earth and make an example of them!
"Among 1.2 billion Muslims the moderate ones are so tiny that they are non-existent by your very accurate estimate. "
Again, all you can do is whine and criticize, and yet you consistently fail to refute my claims using cold, hard facts. I challenge you once again to prove me wrong. Show me proof of this massive movement in Islam to reform itself and become peaceful. Afghanistan is instituting Sharia law. So is hamas with the Palestinians. Iran is declaring it will wipe out America and Israel.
See Plato, you are here for oen reason only. To whine and to insult others. You lack the intelligence to engage in discussion with the rest of us, because you refuse to back your absurd claims with facts, while ignoring the claims of others who have backed their claims with cold, hard, verifiable facts. You wish to remain ignorant. Fine with me.
What you need to do if you expect me to continue discussing the matter with you is to back your claims with evidence, and try shooting mine down with evidence. Prove to me that there is a significant movement inside Islam to reform itself. Strange how all you Muslim apologists together cannot refute my claim that reform inside Islam is an aberration, a thousanth of a percent if that.
"The natives were destroyed by your forebears with the excuse they were savage and uncivilised. "And they were provably not. The situation with Islam is totally different. Compare Native culture to Islamic culture and get a clue.
Absolutely not, and you are clearly ignorant of reality as well as history. The Native Americans wanted to live in peace with us. The Muslims want to destroy and dominate us. Try cracking a history book now and then or perhaps just take a whiff of reality on a semi-regular basis.
"You did not become Nazis because you did not attack them to begin with and you never adopted the Nazi way of doing things. Against the Soviets you did not reciprocate in their style."
The Nazis and the Japanese attacked us and our allies. We retaliated and destroyed them. The Soviets threatened to destroy us and we threatened to destroy them. I propose doing the same to Islam. The Muslims have openly declared war against us, have openly threatened to destroy us, and have openly and admittedly commited attacks and atrocities against us. I propose doing precisely what we did in WWII...destroying the enemy. And capping that with what we did to the Soviets...deter them with the threat of annihilation. I will point out that had America not done those things, you would not be sitting here whining on this blog today.
"Honesty lies in telling me that I believe only .00001 per cent of Muslims are moderate?"
Then prove me wrong Plato! I am sick of listening to your whining and your lies. I have given proof that only a tiny fraction of one percent of Muslims are reform minded based on their actions and the numbers associated with those actions. If you disagree, then you must present verifiably evidence to disprove me, or verifiable evidence to back your claim that they are mainly peace-loving, Kumbayah-singing peaceniks. Unless and until you start enaging in honest and intelligent discussion, I will ignore you from now on. You waste my time with your lies and your ignorance.
"And Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and whereever there are Muslims. Some of them will crawl all the way to the US"
Yeah, they'll crawl across oceans. Get real.
Like I said Plato, I have better things to do than to entertain your absurd claims and your dishonesty. If you want another reply from me, you'll need to post something that is honest, that does not warp and misrepresent what I've said, that has some basis in verifiable reality, and that is intelligent.
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 and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (2097) on this item
Comment on this item
You can help support Daniel Pipes' work by making a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes