He was right. It is their language, their mysticism's and their politics and perhaps their ancestry that keeps them in that non-conscious pagan bicameral mindless set.

Not surprised they use the same tactic...they both learn by the "monkey see, monkey do" method

Include that the women are pretty much enslaved in traditional Islamic countries...That is >50% of the population right there.

Jan

True. But "later" became one invasion after another and one more atrocity after another, hence the derogatory implications.

I think Bill Warner's video here is a little misleading. And I want to start off saying that I am not defending Islam or Christianity, nor any other religion. In the video the 548 battles is spread from 620 AD to 1920 AD. That is 1300 years. So that is about a battle every 2.37 years. But the average misleads because from Warner's video we see new dots appearing disproportionately, so sometimes a battle could have occurred once in a decade or a couple of decades. And the battles were not always in the same place. So this would give plenty of time for new growth in some of these areas. It seems Spain had the most consistent trouble up through the centuries. I think Warner should have also shown the video with all the battles for a given period by themselves. By letting them stay on the map, it makes it appear a lot bigger and worse than what it was. Though, of course, it was very bad.
The Crusaders may have been trying to defend themselves against Islam but they also killed many Jewish people and sacked a stronghold of Christianity, Constantinople.
In the video Warner said that the Crusaders cannot be compared with Islamic attacks, at least not morally. I think this is a good consideration. If the Crusaders attacks were out of self-defense then they are morally superior, given that self-defense is the only legitimate use of force.
Though I think history is good, I do not think it does much for us to defend the acts of the Crusaders or any other movement of the deep past. We know religion is bad, no matter what happened in the past. Yes, Christianity is a western religion, but as Objectivists we should deplore any sort of religion, and not equate Crusaders with Westerners. There are many actors of the past that have achieved and created great things, things that make modern society what it is today, but we must understand that some of these actors were also religious, for example Issac Newton. But the great things that were created are separate from religion. Those moments of innovation and creativity were moments of focus on this world.
As we move forward, the basic tenets of Objectivism must not be lost. A focus on this world, rationality, and non-sacrifice of self and others, etc. Any self-defensive action should be aimed at anyone who uses force illegitimately. I see on some other forums people arguing over who is to blame for the attacks on Paris and other such attacks. Some say not all Muslims are violent, some say they all are, given their religion advocates such violence. Some are arguing on whether a few or all are totalitarians. An honest look at the Quran clears this quarrel and there doesn't have to be an extensive read of the Quran. There are websites that have extracted all the sentences in the Quran that dictate killing of infidels, of the kafirs. These words of killing are a clear exhibition of the ideas motivating the Islamic terrorists. And any application of the Islamic ideas would be totalitarian, even if done non-violently. But what we must not forget is that even though these people have rejected individualism, they still act as individuals. I think some Objectivists lose sight of this. Ayn Rand's advocacy and description of individualism was not just a moral prescription but a description of how people actually work. No matter how collectivist a person is, no matter how much a person relies on other people's minds, no matter how emotionally driven a person is, they are all still individuals. Just as "society" describes individuals working together, so does "collective action" only refer to individuals working in concerted action. Those students at those "safe-space" US universities may feel some sort of unification with one another, and that they are working as a collective, but truthfully they are each an individual making a choice, even if that choice is based on their neighbor's choice. Individualism is not just a moral or political concept, it is rooted in a metaphysical fact of reality. People who reject such metaphysical facts are acting in contradiction to their own nature. And we must remember this and apply it correctly and unflinchingly.

Yes, Jsw225, but even though the Nazis as the political ruling party of Germany were condemned by many nations of the world the word and its infamous meaning has remained in use today. The question was why does Obeyme and his cronies refuse to use the word "Jihadist" as in Islamic jihadists.

Now that is funny Jan. I never really thought of it that way and now I will never be able to get your comment out of my mind when I see horses in a trailer!!

So true GaryL!

Sjatkins: While religion did play a role in these Islamic-Christian wars and in particular the later years, you cannot overlook that at that time in history the "Church" was the political power/army of much of Europe. It goes without saying that "Islam" was a religiously unified army. However, it was an Islamic army that invaded Europe for spoils, territory and slaves and NOT for religious causes (of course their religion followed with them). In fact, in many of the Islamic conquered areas of Europe the Arabs allowed Christians to continue to practice their religious beliefs.

I would clearly agree with you on the example of the long continued Irish "Protestant-Catholic" wars. That deserves an unequivocal apology from both sides.

Bull. Bratton may say what he will: I have no question that I will choose freedom over security, preimert. I want my own encryption algorithms, thank you, I will take my chances with terrorists.

Jan

As it is a mystery to me Term2. In this century it clashes with all human progress made up to this point. An enduring enigma.

You are right Wmiranda, the juxtaposition of the crusades and Islam has been used by Obama on several occasions in an attempt to gain sanction for Islam.

very reasonable explanation actually. Very scary explanation too, as it suggests we are in for it as a race, with democracy leading the charge.

I thought Nazi's called themselves Nazis. This was not a derogatory term until later.

Could be that Socialism and Islam tell you what to do, they "fix" things for you, you don't have to think, you just have to follow their rules without question which ensures you an "equal" place in society. This is how they gain tremendous psychological and political power. Human nature seeks to belong to some form of a structured society in which to take refuge and be accepted. The idea of the "individual" is an extremely frightening concept to many. That is why they sell their souls to belong to something "greater than themselves".
Term2, if you start at an early age with the "indoctrination" of Islam or Socialism/Collectivism the mind will atrophy. As you state, "...they don't use their brains to think", yet thinking/reasoning is a solitary act. Too many have never thought for themselves, they use "group think", and herein lies the demise of free-thinking societies as we know them today.

Liberals gladly used the word "Nazi" in 1939 because they liked the Nazis. They admired and glorified them. FDR, Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin would write letters back and forth filled with admiration for each other.

It was only after near universal public revulsion at what the Liberals in Germany did with the Final Solution did Liberals in America stop liking the Nazis.

Excellent analogy Blackswan. Considering your comment, it's even more strange that many African Americans have adopted the path of Islam- now that's an apparent contradiction.

Fivedollargold- Well said. The word "Nazi" then and now is acceptable usage to define evil and brutality. Other than the reference to the political side it is defined as: "a person who holds and acts brutally in accordance with extreme racist or authoritarian views". Since our President and his democratic cohorts have decided that it is not politically correct to "name" this evil and we all know that if it doesn't have a name you don't have to recognize it.

But JCL...the cart did eventually acquire its own volition. I smile whenever I see horses in a horse trailer.

Jan

That's a good question Term2, but I cannot answer it either. Their religion is their politics and their culture all intertwined into one juggernaut.
You tell me...

Historically and actually I agree with you Herb.
I have worked on many a building project over the years in various Arabic countries and over time my opinion slowly changed- for the worse. With some good wine on hand I could regale you for the better part of the day with stories from my work experiences in dealing with the Islamic mentality and while you might start out laughing you would soon begin to understand the consequences of it all and then -it's no longer funny.

Winston Churchill wrote: "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities but the influence of their religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it."

Damn good too!

D r. Warner's study of the sweeping scope of Islamic jihad in Europe and Asia is sobering. He makes the case that current events manifest of a continuum stretching back to Islam's beginning over 1400 years ago. We have become used to media reports of seemingly isolated incidents of violence here and abroad--some of which are jihad-motivated and some not. What is truly alarming is when we are blind-sighted by a series of simultaneous, coordinated bloody attacks that indicate organization on the part of the perpetrators.

Predictably Face the Nation this morning featured the chairmen of both the Senate and House Intelligence committees as well as NY Police commissioner Bratton saying that the development of more effective encryption services brought on by Snowden's revelations and refusal of the developers to furnish their keys to the government is greatly hampering their efforts.

Frankly I'm beginning to waiver. What does the Gultch think?

Humans, if they dont use their brains to think, seem to be relegated to being like animals on the african plains. And so many of them fall into that category. Look at all the wars over the centuries, not to mention socialism and islam which seems to just be embraced. Both of them are barbaric

Human nature is neutral, like fire. Great good or evil can come from it. My 2 bits.