Iranian Hossein Askari, Professor of International Business and International Affairs at George Washington University and colleague Dr Scheherazde S. Rehman conducted a study to assess the Islamicity of various countries. Okay, lol right off the bat!
But wait! There’s MORE….
He came up with a social-ly-scientific scale to judge the “Economic Islamicity” and the “Overall Islamicity Index”. Stop laughing.
In carrying out the study, they applied the ideals of Islam in the areas of a society’s economic achievements, governance, human and political rights, and international relations.
The country in the world most faithful to the values of the Koran is… IRELAND.
The U.S. and the Netherlands are in 15th place,
France is 17th,
even Israel is 27th!
NOT a single majority-Muslim country made the top 25,
and NO Arab country is in the top 50.
Malaysia is 33rd,
Kuwait is 42nd;
Saudi Arabia is down at 91st,
Qatar (the Al Jazeera folks) is 111th.
(Where’s Pakistan? heh, heh….)
Desperate to explain the results….
Prof Askari said that “we must emphasize that many countries that profess Islam and are called Islamic are unjust, corrupt, and underdeveloped and are in fact not ‘Islamic’ by any stretch of the imagination.”…
So, here comes that”stretch of the imagination” ….
“If a country, society, or community displays characteristics such as unelected, corrupt, oppressive, and unjust rulers, inequality before the law, unequal opportunities for human development, absence of freedom of choice (including that of religion), opulence alongside poverty, force, and aggression as the instruments of conflict resolution as opposed to dialogue and reconciliation, and, above all, the prevalence of injustice of any kind, it is prima facie evidence that it is not an Islamic community,” he said.
Yeah, that’s great – you go tell that to the Saudis… And now for this prime example of islamic cognitive disconnect:
“ Islam is, and has been for centuries, the articulation of the universal love of Allah for his creation and for its unity, and all that this implies for all-encompassing human and economic development,” he concluded.
He must be Egyptian, ’cause he’s livin’ in da Land of De-Nile.
So the more islamic a country is….. the less islamic it is. Makes perfect sense, when you use islam-logic. Now, let’s go visit the actual site of Mo’s flying horse….
Nigerian warplanes struck militant camps in the northeast on Friday in a major push against an Islamist insurgency, DRAWING A SHARP WARNING from the United States to respect human rights and not harm civilians.
~ reuters, via Creeping
srsly?!?!? Look, Nigeria – great job. Carry on. Don’t listen to our government. Yeah, you might hit civilians – you might even end up bombing the entire group of captured Christian girls. BUT even that will be worth it, if you carry your campaign to its logical conclusion: the complete eradication of Boko Haram.
And now for the Chix reference: I apologize for our government. They’re out of control. Kerry, the State Department – has the State Department always been this bad, and Presidents used to simply keep them in check? This administration is letting them have free reign.
The American people are betrayed by this bunch of crackpots, and we are only able to wait until we can change the leadership in the next election (assuming a low level of voter fraud.)
Let’s add to the barf factor, shall we?
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry issued a strongly worded statement saying: “We are … deeply concerned by credible allegations that Nigerian security forces are committing gross human rights violations, which, in turn, only escalate the violence and fuel extremism.”
Yep – defending yourself is a GROSS violation of your killers’ human rights.
And Kerry – dude - fuel is something that causes something to burn – I’m pretty sure those insurgents were burning with extremism long before the Nigerians defended themselves.
But Let Kerry show you how it’s done:
Washington “condemns Boko Haram’s campaign of terror in the strongest terms”, Kerry said, but urged Nigeria’s armed forces to show restraint and discipline.
Whoo!!! Those Strong Terms!!! THAT’S what’s gonna get these monsters to let those girls go home, and lay down their weapons, form a circle and sing Kumbaya. Yep! That’ll do it!
Now, for the good news:
Nigerian defense spokesman Brigadier-General Chris Olukolade said in a statement that troops destroyed several Boko Haram camps and weapons stockpiles in forests around Borno state, epicenter of the uprising … : “Heavy weapons including anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns were also destroyed in the process,” he said.
“The special operations … resulted in the destruction of much of the insurgents’ weapons and logistics such as vehicles, containers, fuel dumps and power generators.”
He said the death toll amongst the insurgents would be verified during mopping up exercises in the camps, including in the Sambisa game reserve in Borno state. A military source said at least 30 insurgents had been killed in one operation.
Locals are forming their own groups to defend themselves successfully:
An estimated 200 suspected members of Boko Haram were reportedly killed Wednesday and 10 captured in a successful counteroffensive by a local Nigerian militia in Rann, located in … Borno state.
Sources on the ground said 300 members of Islamist radical group Boko Haram stormed the local village around 4:00 a.m. local time. It is believed the successful counter-atttack was due to local knowledge of the impending attack, allowing Rann’s citizens to prepare to defend themselves.
A member of the (villagers’) militia … said, “They wanted to attack us just the way they did in Bama, Konduga and Damboa, but we got the wind of it and all of us laid ambush for them; when they neared the village, we opened fire using our Dane duns, double barrel rifles and bows-and-arrows, most of them who were shocked took to their heels, but many of them died, some that were injured have been caught alive and are with the security people as I am talking to you.”
According to a local state legislator, “The villagers succeeded in protecting their dwellings from the attackers. They killed about 200 members of the sect and many others escaped with serious wounds.” He continued, “Our people also recovered over 70 motorcycles that the attackers came with. They also collected 2 Hilux vehicles and an Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) while some of the attackers were captured alive.”
In editing this , I came across an issue I should mention: Boko Haram has been called a “militia” so many times by the the media, for so many years, I found I had to qualify the use of the term, when it referred to the defending villagers. To be clear, Boko Haram is a terrorist army. And it’s worth remembering that they have been, for the most part, virtually unopposed for years.
Here’s a lol from the NYS Common Core English test…. for THIRD grade (taken from a blog commenter, from an unlocated blog) :
Instead of a question like: “What caused the character to (insert action here) in the middle of the story?” (which, mind you, is hard enough for an 8-year-old to identify as it is), there were questions like:
“In Line 8 of Paragraph 4, the character says … and in Line 17 of Paragraph 5, the character does … Which of the following lines from Paragraph 7 best supports the character’s actions?”This, followed by four choices of lines from Paragraph 7 that could all, arguably, show motivation for the character’s actions…
and yes – this is TYPICAL of the CC materials – both tests and lessons.
I hear a voice in my head asking, “What is WRONG with this question?”
Where’s a child psychologist when you need one?!? This question is fully abstract. Many adults have trouble answering completely abstract questions, much less NINE-YEAR-OLDS.
“But it relates to completely concrete concepts, as referenced in the text…?”
This question only seems completely concrete… to a lawyer. Ah! you say – that’s why this seems so reasonable! And yes, that’s why the CC is filled with questions and lessons composed in this obscure manner – it’s configured to meet the requirements of LAWYERS. When the state commissioner of education…. is a LAWYER, you naturally get this sort of materials for children.
The entire question is composed of references TO SOMETHING ELSE, and there are at least 6 of these references to other material in this ONE question. That’s the Abstract quality – many back-and-forth mental exercises must be made, just to comprehend the question!
Never mind actually figuring out the answer – which in these CC tests, can be vague or uncertain – several answers may be right, but one may be seen as better than the others.
Will return with more Common Core critiques – when I have time…..
Say, I just had an Idea (this morning)…..
Since Congress continues to threaten our security with new iterations of Immigration Reform…. why not start a New program? We could call it “Trading Places.” For every illegal immigrant we catch (– we Deport them – no ifs, ands, or buts…) – BUT for each one we toss out, we ADMIT ONE LEGAL immigrant whose application has been filed.
Okay – to appease the “we’ve got too many already” crowd – let’s make it for every TWO illegals we deport, we accept a properly-vetted, patiently-waiting-to-get-here, prospective new American. And these legal ones we accept can be from the country we deport our illegals to. This will make it more likely that those countries will accept the deportees, if they know that their other constituents are happy and Legal.
We will be getting rid of the moochers, liars, and cheats (oh – and the drug runners!) and in return we will be getting folks who persevere and follow the rules. These traits are far more likely to help immigrants thrive in their new country, than the ability to financially undercut law-abiding businesses, or being able to avoid contact with all law enforcement personnel. And people the world over will know we can be relied on to treat honest folks fairly (like it used to be!)
This would be a terrific way to end the illegal “undocumented” interlopers, because the smartest ones would start to figure that they might have a better chance of coming here, and staying here, if they go home & enter through the right channels. Their way would be paved by the dumb ones, or the sneakiest ones, who think they can still manage to hide in the U.S shadows.
As we deport, deport, deport, and responsible, viable new immigrants arrive, we will find it even more politically-correct (not to mention advantageous!) to continue the deportations. After all, deportations are how we make more room for decent folks to enter.
It’s time to contact our Congresscritters about Trading Places! It’s never too early or late for the right kind of Immigration Reform.
Today we have a Guest Post by young Doom, himself. A debate-warrior with the twenty-something crowd, I’ve asked him to write down some of the tricks of the trade that make him so successful.
How to Argue A Liberal
A guide to taking on, and beating, a liberal in any arena, public or private (especially in front of the liberal media).
After becoming increasingly aggravated and ashamed with the continual losses that conservatives have been suffering, and the general direction that the country is taking, I decided to do some research, and put together my thoughts on various concepts that seem to be plaguing our debating/arguing capability.
I developed his guide to be used when confronted with, and outnumbered or outmaneuvered by a liberal opponent (or group of them) who is unwilling to see or respond to logical arguments. Or if you’re a guest on a liberal media outlet.
DISCLAIMER: Please use this guide with caution, as continued exposure to these tactics may degrade one’s sense of morality.
Now that that’s out of the way, let’s get you armed! I have made this guide in sections according to what seem to be the most used techniques, and in what would be the most appropriate order to approach this style of debating/arguing.
1: “Fair Play”
This concept comes from a mutual respect for one’s opponent, their right to think as an individual, be their own unique self, and is something usually taught in kindergarten. However, a Liberal Has no respect for anyone who does not agree completely with their world/universe point-of-view. They therefore have no use for, or concept of, fair play. This gives them the ability to rationalize anything they do as necessary, and as it means they win, Necessary=Right.
Now, after watching more political crap (media) than I care to admit, and doing a considerable amount of historical research, I have come to the conclusion that the most effective way to deal with this type of arguer, is to fight on their level.
Doing this will probably make you feel a little nauseated, AND IT SHOULD; but while constrained by honor, respect, and decency, you will be coming from a position that cannot be defended. As unfortunate as it is, if you adhere to the concept of “Fair”, YOU WILL LOSE….BADLY!!
Ex: Using minutes more than allowed in debates (liberals), and then cry-assing when a conservative finishes one second late. Constant interruptions, and shouting when they don’t get their way.
While it may be in your nature to feel some sort of pity for your opponent, for using these tactics against them, your opponent will not have the same reservations, and will in fact, expect you to reciprocate. Showing pity, care for your opponents sensibilities, or shame for having to fight on this level, are all deadly mistakes. Your opponent will seize the opportunity, and exploit your weakness.
3: “Glamour Effect”
Do not go into an argument or debate thinking that your opponent will argue using any recognizable form of logic or reason. if possible, they will drag you out of the realm of what is “real”, and into their own twisted version of reality. What you need to do, is figure out how they are trying to accomplish the task, and redirect it toward an arena that is more even, or at least beneficial to you.
This is a favorite in the liberal arsenal. Since your opponent will likely be aware that their argument cannot be won on merit, they will seek to destroy YOU by any means necessary (see rule 1). It’s basically, “if I can’t make my argument look better, then I’ll make yours look worse”. What they are counting on you not to realize, is that it works Both ways.
Now, your opponent is likely going to be better at this than you, and that’s OK, because the “facts” supporting their smear/character assassination of you, are (generally) not going to stand up to the ones used by you against them. The only way to effectively combat this in any sort of timely manner, is in kind.
To do so, you must find any kind of fault or possible source of conflicting, scandalous, or hypocritical material in their background, or the background of those around them, and present the facts with the worst possible connotations that you can manage. The goal here is to make the audience actively Hate your opponent merely for the crime of existing.
It doesn’t matter how much crap gets thrown at you; as long as you end up on top, you will have the opportunity to go into “damage-control” mode.
In order to mitigate potential damage from this type of attack, it is helpful to have rebuttals ready for all scenarios that you think your opponent may try to use against you. However, given the relatively large number of possible angles of attack, it may be simpler/more effective to just open up with both barrels, and hope for the best.
This technique has the added Bonus effect of making the target “toxic” to others of their party, since affiliation would mean being vulnerable to the same type of assault.
Ex: George Bush being mocked for being a “C-average” president. Mocking any conservative for being openly Christian. Mocking conservatives for being patriotic (or anyone for that matter).
Your opponent, whoever they are, is going to change the subject any time you would be able to strike at one of their key arguments. This can be used to identify what those arguments are, and then systematically destroy them. The tactic is used by both sides, but conservatives generally suck at it… hardcore.
Too many examples! Watch any presidential/congressional debate.
6: “Character Assassination”
This could be considered part of “4”, but I felt it merited its own section, on account of its widespread use, and its kill ratio. A liberal will do everything in their power Not to have to face you head-on. Instead, they will come at you indirectly, attacking your credibility, or family/community ties.
The process for dealing with this tactic, is the same as for #4. First, you must be constantly ready and able to withstand ridicule for anything and everything that someone may find offensive in any way. Next, you must be willing to go into the past of your opponent, and their friends, family, community, state, and any organizations that were even associated by proximity (socially or geographically), dig through them, and find anything that could be used to make them look bad. Even if it is something that is not directly related, it can be Made to Look relevant.
If the ammunition in question is something private, and not normally shared with the public, all-the-better, because it will cause more of a scandal. This tactic relies on the user’s ability to temporarily suppress their own morality (see disclaimer), and bring upon themselves the will to publicly damage another person for no better reason than they, at one time, didn’t actively harm your (liberal) opponent.
I said this in number 1, and I will say it again. This tactic probably makes you ill, just thinking about it, but that is normal. It just shows that you still have a functioning moral center.
Ex: Sarah Palin taking heat for opposing abortion and being Christian, while having a child with down syndrome.
7: “Logic Vs. Emotion”
Any liberal argument will by its nature be light on factual evidence, or have doctored/spun evidence to support it. To compensate for this, a liberal will instead resort to making their argument into a story intended to elicit an emotional response from their audience. This has the advantage of being able to Override the logic center of their audience’s brain, and making them more susceptible to thinking what the liberal wants them to.
When using this tactic, it is important to remember that both positive and negative emotions can work for you if used correctly; make sure that your arguments elicit the correct emotions for the situation.
Ex: Can anyone say “Global Warming”. Saying the conservative is “being mean, vindictive, a bigot, racist” when they say something that would counter a key point in a liberal argument.
8: “Argument Bombardment”
This is a favorite with liberals who have mastered the previous rules, especially #3 through #7. With this tactic, it may not be necessary for a person to lie, since it relies on throwing as many details as possible into an argument, in story form, and as quickly as possible. The only known way to combat this is to be able to systematically counter every point raised, in a similar, rapid-fire-story fashion.
This means, making an argument that tells a story, includes as many facts/ideas as possible, making sure that all of those little bits singularly and wholly elicit as strong an emotional response as possible.
This technique is only usable if one has the ability to make their voice attractive to listen to, or at the very least, impossible to ignore, without yelling. It can be a difficult skill to learn, but is a powerful weapon once mastered.
Parents: you will have a bit of an advantage in this field, assuming you figured out how to get your child/children to listen to you for an extended period of time. Liberals think like children, and their attention will be held in much the same way.
Examples of this would be too long to post here, and would not provide enough information to be useful. You will just have to learn for yourself.
9: “Flat-Out Lying”
This is NOT a recommended tactic since you will undoubtedly be called out on it; it is just something that I have noticed conservatives seem to be naively unaware of. A liberal arguer WILL LIE if they believe they may not get caught, or that it will be too late to do anything about it. They must be caught, and called on it within moments, or your chance will most likely be lost.
NOTE: This technique appears last not because of its frequency of use, but because of the ill-advised nature of using it.
Ex: “I did not have $#x with that woman”, “Global Warming”, “spend our way out of debt”, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, the IRS scandal, the Benghazi incident, “Obamacare”.
While using these techniques can be useful, calling a liberal out for using them can be equally as useful. Just like that kid that burnt ants with a magnifying glass on the playground, every time they try to move to another position, move with them, keep the light cranked right up, and eventually they will get too burnt to keep going.
Turkey’s Prime Minister Tayycip Erdogan (one of Bo’s Five Best Buds!) has been playing Risk with his own country for decades – getting into power, and then consolidating power more and more each day. Recently, the judiciary launched a wide-ranging corruption investigation – Erdogan sees this as a challenge to his rule (well, it IS – probably the only way left for his country to oppose him.)
So Erdogan gets his party to propose a bill to give him more control over the judiciary. Lawyers and judges are not so keen…
a representative of a judicial association arrived with a petition arguing the bill was anti-constitutional, but was not allowed to speak
Why is this interesting, you ask? Aside from Bo’s Best Buddoing what all dictators do (there’s a great photo of Erdogan at the link!), the opposition lawmakers did not take this lying down, according to Reuters…
Turkish parliamentarians threw punches and water bottles during a debate on Saturday about government control over the appointment of judges and prosecutors, as a feud over the ruling party’s handling of a corruption scandal intensified. One MP leapt on a table and launched a flying kick as others wrestled and punched at each other, with document folders, plastic water bottles and even an iPad flying through the air…
“Well, that’s all very nice. Is There VIDEO?” you ask……
Why, yes. Yes, there is…..