I blogged the Crusader Challenge before, but, let’s leave it up as a sticky note for a couple weeks, the better for Islamist apologists who yammer on about those evil Christians doing Bad Things to put their money where their mouths are. Michael Graham at News Radio 106.7 in Atlanta is willing to “set aside $100 for every death committed in the name of fundamentalist Christianity in the year 2015. You—the “The problem isn’t Islam†adherent—will set aside just ONE dollar for every death committed in the name of Islamist fundamentalism and violent jihad.” This runs through the end of 2015. Who will take up the challenge?
Teach do you self identify as a fundamentalist apologist ?
Please post a link to liveleak of a witch being burned alive in Africa
And then apologize/excuse it
Color me shocked that John deflects and refuses to say he’ll take the challenge.
You’re the one saying that’s happening, John. Post it yourself. I post what I want on the blog I pay for.
John, you’ve got some strange obsessions.
Teach those Islamist apologists ??? Would that be Reagan when he invited. All those Afghan “freedom fighters” to the White House tonfightbthevRussians ? Or would that be the right wingers who supported the Saudis for decades in return for cheap oil
Would it be Bush who defended the Saudis and Kuwatis from the more progressive and secular Saddam?
Were these Islamist apologists the ones who clamored for war ?
Who got rid of a secular government that was more progressive in Afghanistan ?
And installed an Afghan government that is far more regressive than the one the Russians supported?
The rightwing has looooong supported the most right wing regressive Islamic governments as long as they sold cheap oil and companies could make profits?
Are those the apologists. You are talking about ?
Deflection #2 from John. Not 2 I’ll in to out your money where your mouth is, eh?
That’s OK. John is living up to my expectations of him.
These online wagers always favor the house.
Would anyone construct such a wager where they had a chance to lose?
Do you think it proper to wager on the lives and deaths of humans to make a political point?
My point has been that right-wing nutjobs kill more Americans here than do Muslim nutjobs, and that Islam is naturally no more violent a religion at its core than Christianity. And both religions are based on myths and magic.
Your latest post is based on myth and magic. And yes, Islam at it’s core is more violent than any other religion. That tends to happen when you’re stuck in the 7th century.
Interesting. Jeff just admitted that this is a losing bet for the Islamists protectors like himself and John, despite their constant complaints about how murderous Christians are. Seems as if he understands, but doesn’t like to say, that hard core Islam is ultra murderous.
According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11.
By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda’s ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/bergen-sterman-kansas-shooting/
Why is the right-wing more concerned about violent Muslims in Iraq than violent right-wingers in America?
And yet another deflection by Jeff. Will you take the challenge, Jeff?
BTW, a Progressive just killed 3 Muslims on Chapel hill.
FTA:
Hitler == left-wing
KKK == left-wing
Over at my spot we’ve gone round and round and round about this, hundreds, perhaps thousands of comments going back and forth, and at the end of it there is no coherent, consistent rationale by which you can call such movements “right wing.” Now, some may feel they can still defend that categorization, provide some foundation for the argument that makes sense anywhere outside a college campus or some other lefty echo chamber. Something stronger than “Everybody said” or “Everybody knows.”
But at the end of it, this, as an example, sucks balls. Left-wing, if we really want to put together something that works throughout history, is Lenin’s question of “Who/Whom?” — there is a class of people who are to do something, and there is another class of people to whom they get to do it. And like left-wing challenger Napoleon, the “Who” becomes the subject that gets to do these things, by way of mob mentality; they enjoy the benefit of a huge crushing throng, like President Obama. The “right wing reactionary,” like Jefferson reacting against the rise of the Federalists, says “No, I don’t think you have that kind of power over me.” The left believes in castes, the right resists castes. That has a lot to do with why the Republican party was formed to end slavery.
Given that, how do we pigeonhole Hitler as a right-winger? It takes a lot of mental contortion to do it. Well I mean…only if you are called-upon to explain it, and not hide behind “everybody-knows.”
Nationalism, Aryan supremacy, authoritarianism, capital punishment, fascism, banning of most non-Christian religions = Nazis.
That’s pretty right-wing. Read on.
KKK = white supremacy, authoritarianism, Christian
Nazi=National Socialist Party.
The Socialist democratic political model’s main point is about government controlling economic activity, including nationalization .
No, I will not take the rigged challenge. I frankly don’t worry too much about what ISIS is doing in Iraq.
Will you take the challenge that through the end of 2015 right-wingers will murder more American police and gov’t workers than will Muslim extremists? Even money. $100 a murder to go to charity?
Teach,
Do you know why Hitler included the word Socialist in the title?
Of course not. Take ten minutes on Google and then share.
Of course you refuse to take the challenge. For all your Christian bashing and moral equivocation, you know that Islamists are way more murderous. Hence the point of this posT and the challenge itself.
Yes, Jeff, I do, it was about State Socialism, part of the fascist ideology, in which the State controls the econony, owns business, everything is for the good of the state, much like modern day Progressivism. Both share many, many common traits, which span both sides of the political science textbook definitions of right and left. It was about massive central government control, very nuclear where people are subservient to the State and worshipful of the State. This is what Progressives today want.
What it doesn’t share with the political science version of socialism is true elections (socialist model calls for as much openness, direct democracy, and open franchise as possible) and personal freedom. Your brethren who are Progressives talk a good game about voting abound DD, but only approve when they win. The Dem party and Progressives are constantly pushing for more and more Central government control. Doing away with religion. Limiting lower government abounded personal freedom. Discrimination and scapegoating of certain groups. Massive government intrusion into the private sector. Hmm, sounds just like the Nazis and fascism.
Teach,
Do you take my challenge to you?
So you don’t know why Hitler chose to use the name Socialist in the name. Interesting. Yet, you bullshitted 200 words and didn’t get close. It’s a simple one sentence correct answer. Try again?
Here’s a hint: support of displaced workers…
J-“KKK-white supremist, Christians….” Oh, and they were Democrats, in case you forgot. And that was in the past, in case you forgot that also.
j,
I didn’t bring up the KKK. But yes, long ago conservatives were almost all racist, Southern Democrats. When the GOP became the white party, and when JFK and LBJ started supporting rights for Blacks, conservatives migrated to their natural home, the GOP.
The far-right wants to believe that the Nazis and KKK were liberal or progressive, but that’s just another right-wing myth.
Listen, most current conservatives are not like the Nazis or the KKK, both examples of murderous extremists. Most current Muslims are not like murderous ISIL.
LOOK OUT NEW ENGLAND: Winter Storm Neptune set to slam Northeast USA:
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2015/02/winter-storm-neptune-update.html
“I didn’t bring up the KKK. But yes, long ago conservatives were almost all racist, Southern Democrats. When the GOP became the white party, and when JFK and LBJ started supporting rights for Blacks, conservatives migrated to their natural home, the GOP”….Speaking of fairytales…
Well, this is going….exactly as I expected, with Lefties refusing to take the challenge, and deflecting and distracting.
Yes, it is precisely what I said. There is a clear and emphatic consensus that Hitler was a “right” winger, but if you take the time to inspect and question it you find there is nothing to the consensus whatsoever. It comes down to:
1. Support for private property
2. Nationalism
Now think through #1. If someone says Hitler was a right-winger on private property, logically that would have to mean the “centrist,” “moderate” or reasonable position on private property would be somewhere to the left of Hitler. This is MOST worrisome, since Hitler’s position on private property was approximately equal to Barack Obama’s: Completely in support of it, so long as the private property is support of the regime. Hitler, like Obama, supported isolated instances of ownership. Not the overall principle of it. And many high-ranking officials within the regime, such as Goebbels, were opposed to even that much.
Which leaves nationalism. Is it fair & accurate to say you’re right-wing if you’re a nationalist? That’s a dubious proposition at best. We’d have to re-define every single *left-wing* tinpot dictator on the globe, as a tighty-righty, if they show a bit of sluggishness flocking to the U.N. headquarters to get properly enrolled. Which, ya know, they’re not gonna be doing anytime soon. It’s part of the definition of being a lefty tinpot dictator. Like Hitler.
In sum, it is important with left-wingers to divide the content of their core ideology, with the selling points that they use when they pitch it, since it is an ideology based on deception. In simpler terms, the advice is to ignore the things they say and more carefully watch what they do.
The entire premise of asking “Who was worse: the Crusades or ISIS?” is flawed. The Crusades were a response to aggressive Muslim wars of conquest. Essentially the Crusaders were fighting the ISIS of their times. Here is a similar flawed comparison: there is a gang of armed robbers that are relentless committing home invasions. Everything the homeowners have done to try to protect their homes and families is failing. So the homeowners band together and go down to the criminals’ turf and try to wipe them out at the source. Do you ask: “who is worse, the armed robbers or the people trying to protect their homes?”. Well, SJWs do, but most rational people wouldn’t.
Teach,
Will you take my challenge?
The silly challenge is a distraction in the first place. Who is making the argument that there are more Christianist murderers today than Islamist murderers?
Here’s another challenge for all the Muslim bashers.
What would you do to solve the problem?
So far, it seems your solution is to call Muslims names.
What would you do to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism?
A few well-placed bombs near Mecca might start to do the trick, with the intention of a direct hit if terrorist activities persist. Also, not giving in to the threat. After the newspaper killings in Paris, every major newspaper in the world should have published the cartoons. Loosen the rules of engagement for the military-it’s hard to fight with one hand tied behind your back. Halt Muslim immigration to the countries that want to get serious about the threat. ‘Have the “moderate majority” of Mulims I keep hearing about speak out against terrorism. In other words, act like a majority. But the above are just some examples of the kinds of things to do if you’re really serious about the threat rather than just pretending you’re serious about the threat.
As Michael Graham tweeted to me today “I created #CrusaderWage to shut up “It’s not Islam–it’s ALL religions” p.c.ers. When they say it, I offer it. They shut up.”
Exactly. Neither John nor Jeff will take the challenge, and are still deflecting and distracting.
Graham also told me that not one person has taken up the challenge. Color me not shocked.
You would bomb Saudi Arabia, one of our few allies in the middle east, punishing all Muslims for atrocities they didn’t commit? There’s a word for that – terrorism. Sounds as if you do want an open war with Islam. Anyway, that won’t work and will make the situation much worse.
Accomplishing what? What if the newspapers didn’t feel that was appropriate? Would you force them? And do you really think the murderous terrorists are actually driven to their acts by cartoons?
Specifically, what do you mean?
Can’t all countries do that now? Can you opine on whether it’s Constitutional for the US to halt immigration of a particular religion? Many terrorist acts in Western nations are committed by “home grown” terrorists, how would this stop them?
You may have noticed that terrorists don’t respond to reason and answer to no majority.
Thanks for taking a stab at it, but I doubt any of your actions would make much of a difference.
Will you or the dimwitted Graham take my challenge? You both distract from the real discussion with attention whore antics.
Take your choice.
Explain what policies you think should be enacted to thwart Islamic terrorism.
or
$100 for each US policeman or US gov’t official murdered in the US by a right-winger vs. $100 for each American Christian murdered in the US by an Islamic terrorist.
And why does the murder of two Danes receive so much more media coverage than the murder of 3 Muslims in the US?
Jeffery and john both distracting from the issue because they KNOW that radical islam is much, much worse than any radical Christian or right winger.
I also find it very telling that they point to ALL republicans and right wings as being racist and then swear up and down that they, themselves are NOT bigots.
And not being concerned about what is happening in Iraq is just as telling. They say WE are blind to what is going on when they ignore what is right in front of them. Radical islam has declared war on the west and what is happening in Iraq and elsewhere, including Europe, is just the beginning. If we don’t stop it now, it won’t be long until those attacks by islam on US soil far outnumbers those supposed Christian attacks.
nighthawk,
Talk is cheap.
What policies should the US gov’t enact, what actions should we take to contain the threat of Islamic terrorism?
Talk IS cheap. So, are you going to back up YOUR talk by taking the challenge?
Jeffery deflection in 3…2…1
No. Are you going to take my challenge.
The Graham challenge is designed to shut critics up, not to further discussion.
So,
What policies should the US gov’t enact, what actions should we take to contain the threat of Islamic terrorism?
And there it is…
DEFLECT!!!!
J- “You both distract from the real discussion..” No, question asked, question answered. That you don’t like or agree with them doesn’t mean your question hasn’t been answered. Several concrete proposals were given. But nice try. Anyway, some of the responses were priceless. “Can you opine on whether it’s constitutional to restrict immigration of a particular religion? Out current president would no doubt say of course it can be done, through executive action, though personally he’d be the kind to welcome them in. “You may have noticed terrorists don’t respond to reason..” Then that should be the last we hear about how “most Muslims are moderate”, as, according to you, it’s irrelevant because no one would listen to them anyway. “Saudi Arabia, one of our few allies in the Middle East.” Funny, never hear you talk about “Israel, one of our few allies in the Middle East.” The real one is Israel. And no, it wouldn’t be terrorism to bomb, or say we’re going to bomb, Mecca. I would envision something like, “if there’s one more terror attack, one week from now at a certain time it’s going to happen- which would allow all people to move out. You know, like our ally Israel does before it bombs a target that’s not strictly military. “And do you really think terrorists are driven to their acts by cartoons?” Why of course- that’s why they’re terrorists. But remember, the current administration blamed a terror attack on a video, correct? “What if the newspapers didn’t feel it was appropriate? Would you force them?” I said that’s what they should have done. I wasn’t talking about their feelings. If everybody publishes it, who does one kill?
j,
Yeah, j, bombing Mecca to force others to change their behavior is the definition of terrorism, and is counterproductive to boot.
Nice deflection – do you think that restricting immigration by religion is Constitutional?
Your argument about moderate Muslims is nonsensical.
“What policies should the US gov’t enact, what actions should we take to contain the threat of Islamic terrorism?”
Great question Jeffery.
Tell me, what would your answer be?
Detroit man stabbed two people at a suburban bus stop after asking his victims whether or not they were Muslim, according to police.
Hank_M,
It IS a great question, isn’t it?
That’s why I asked it of those who so vociferously felt the actions we’re taking now are inadequate to defend the US.
Isn’t it amazing to you that the US has had so little trouble compared to European nations? What do we do that is different?
“Your argument about moderate Muslims is nonsensical.” Seeing as you have no rebuttal, I’d say the same to you. As you say, nice deflection. “Do you think restricting immigration by religion is constitutional?” It doesn’t matter what I think, now does it? But under the current administration, anything seems to be constitutional by executive order. So go for it. But Obama is too much of a pussy. “Bombing mecca is the definition of terrorism.” I’m crushed. So what? We did a lot of things in WW2 that might fall under that definition, but guess what? We won that one. What would you do, give them a big time out?
That was a disappointment Jeffery.
Although I expected it.
You ask a question but won’t answer it yourself. Why? Fear? Afraid to say what you think about Islamic terrorism?
As to what we do differently…..the second amendment.
Behead 21 Christians and little Jeffery and Johnny think we should hold an encounter group session on Lutheran extremists or something.
In January alone, there were 266 Islamic terrorist attacks (including 43 suicide bombings) in 28 countries across the world. 3,998 people died and 2261 were critically wounded.
goingdownonpuppies,
How many of these attacks were in the US?
I’m sorrowful that extremists murdered 21 Egyptians in Libya, but the US is not responsible for the actions of everyone on the planet. In addition, nearly every action we take in the Middle East makes things worse.
Over 150,000 people die every day on this Earth – 18,000 kids under 5 die each day. From diseases, starvation, accidents, murders, trauma, childbirth, prematurity.
Why are you and those like you only concerned about those few killed by terrorists who are Muslims? We know the answer… You’re terrified. Because you’re afraid, you want to send other peoples children to fight the bad guys to make you feel safer. But it won’t make you safer. Several thousand brave Americans were killed and maimed in Afghanistan and Iraq to make you feel safer, but you’re now more afraid than ever. The problem isn’t the few people murdered by barbarians, as tragic as that is, the problem with your terror, is you.
Why do you think the ISIL murderers commit their murders by beheadings and burnings? Terror. Why do they videotape and distribute their horrific acts? Terror.
Over 150,000 humans die each day. To stand out, ISIL needs NBC, FOX, CBS, CNN, YouTube and you to help them accomplish their task.
“I’m sorrowful that extremists murdered 21 Egyptians in Libya”
No you’re not. You couldn’t even name the people responsible, ISIS, nor the key characteristic of the victims, being Coptic CHRISTIANS.
Then, it’s off to straw man mountain in Jeffery’s world making brief stops at the world mortality rate, wrong assumptions, the chickenhawk insult, and hypophora until finally arriving at lunacy station by blaming others for noticing the inhuman acts committed by Islamic terrorists.