tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post115967836576088067..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: `I'm sorry..for the terrible crimes committed by Muslims'Freedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-1159856472911273012006-10-02T23:21:00.000-07:002006-10-02T23:21:00.000-07:00The Ottomans were Turks, Nazar. And they considere...The Ottomans were Turks, Nazar. And they considered the Arabs (and probably still do, to some degree)as a lower form of life.<BR/><BR/>See Bernard Lewis' `A short History Of The Middle East'.<BR/><BR/>As for the 60%, keep in mind that I said they are at different points along the scale - in other words, not all of them have a sympathy for jihad. And they can be `turned' by events towards th eside that appears to be winning.<BR/><BR/>ffFreedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-1159756207902639452006-10-01T19:30:00.000-07:002006-10-01T19:30:00.000-07:00You mean the Ottomans aren't Arabs themselves? And...You mean the Ottomans aren't Arabs themselves? And here I was, thinking they were all one and same.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for clarifying your formula. I thought that the ones who occasionally gave a dinar or two were included in the jihadist 20%, but I guess I misandustood you.<BR/><BR/>Still, if 60% "have sympathy" for a nefarious group like Al-Qaida, you gotta ask yourself are they convertable to our side? Aren't they already so out there that nothing can convince them how wrong they are?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-1159743425596722692006-10-01T15:57:00.000-07:002006-10-01T15:57:00.000-07:00Hi Nazar,No offence taken.I think the formulae is ...Hi Nazar,<BR/><BR/>No offence taken.<BR/><BR/>I think the formulae is valid, though I agree the numbers are probably more skewed towards the jihadis outside of America.<BR/><BR/>Remember, I talked about points on the scale.<BR/><BR/>I think 20% of the Muslim population is ACTIVELY involved in things like al Qaeda, Jihad terrorism and war against the west.<BR/><BR/>60% may include a number of people that have sympathy for their aims, and may even fall into the category that Stephen Emerson referred to as `cultural jihadists.' They may even give a little money and rhetorical support now and then..but they're not strapping bombs to themselves or planning terrorist assaults openly on the west.<BR/><BR/>The majority can be turned, depending on events. As Julius Caeser once wrote about the Germans in his `Commentaries' the majority of Muslims,particularly Arabs are normally either at your throat or at your feet.<BR/><BR/>Submission is built into the culture, which is why Islam was such a success.<BR/><BR/>Remember that the Ottomans ruled over the Arabs for centuries while bleeding them white with taxes and otherwise treating them them in a no nonsense harsh manner without any major problems until the empire was in its death throes.Freedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-1159737313681665012006-10-01T14:15:00.000-07:002006-10-01T14:15:00.000-07:00I agree with you about everything besides the 20-2...I agree with you about everything besides the 20-20-60 formula. I don't mean any disrespect to you, but how can you possibly think that only 20% of Muslims are actively involved in jihad when more than 20% are accepting, and even gleeful of terrorism, and they're living in one of the most free societies in the world?<BR/><BR/>I think that in America the situation isn't nearly as dire, but that's no reason to open the doors to people from countries like, oh, I don't know, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, to name a few.<BR/><BR/>Incindentally, this is a problem that plagues socialistic countries. Now I like to see socialism choking on its fat as much as the next guy, but even I'd rather have a socialist country to the north than an Islamist country.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-1159733321931626012006-10-01T13:08:00.000-07:002006-10-01T13:08:00.000-07:00I don't think that was what he was trying to say.R...I don't think that was what he was trying to say.<BR/><BR/>Remember the 20-60-20 formulae that I've talked about before...20% actively jihadi, 20%,like this man who are appalled at what is being done in the name of Islam, and 60% who are more or less passive, and are on various points on the scale, but will move with events one way or the other.<BR/><BR/>If anything, this piece endorses that view and points out the necessity of empowering non-jihadi Muslims...something the West does NOT do now.We must make that 60% choose sides.<BR/><BR/>The alternative, of course, is wholesale deportations, which would work...but that carries baggage of its own sort that is fairly undesireable.<BR/><BR/>At the very least, we ought to try Plan A first, I think.Freedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-1159711411949526892006-10-01T07:03:00.000-07:002006-10-01T07:03:00.000-07:00Very nice piece, but if Muslims are mostly liberal...Very nice piece, but if Muslims are mostly liberal, kind people dominated by armed minorities, this doesn't explain why at least 34% of Muslims in Britain want sharia law, and why at least 37% think attacks against Jews are legitimate. Don't forget, these are the ones who are willing to admit it, who knows how many closet jihadists there are?<BR/><BR/>I appreciate this man trying to reach out, but I ain't buying it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com