Search This Blog

Monday, June 19, 2017

Excuse me, but your cognitive dissonance is showing

This Blog Post has been moved. Click HERE to read it.


  1. Rev Dr Mark Durie wrote:

    “In the IRA’s (Irish Republican Army’s) GREEN BOOK … there is not a single mention of God, Jesus, the Bible, Catholics, Protestants or even religion."

    “… the IRA looked for guidance to MARX, not CHRIST.”

    “In complete contrast to the IRA’s GREEN BOOK, materials put out by ISLAMIC terrorists are invariably jam-packed with religious references.”

    Is that true about the IRA?

    To check, I went through the IRA’s GREEN BOOK.

    Here's what I found:

    “... the Army are intent on creating a SOCIALIST Republic”

    “… it seeks a third, SOCIALIST alternative which transcends both Western individualistic capitalism and Eastern state capitalism, which is in accordance with our best revolutionary traditions as a people.”

    “… The I.R.A.promises a democratic and SOCIALIST state.”

    “… Culturally we would hope to restore Gaelic, not from the motivation of national chauvinism but from the viewpoint of achieving with the aid of a cultural revival the distinctive new Irish SOCIALIST State.”

    “… to the ultimate aim of a Democratic SOCIALIST Republic.”

    And no JC. No God. No Bible. No religion.

    Looks like Rev Dr Mark Durie is correct. Again.

    1. Thanks Prodos for confirming that Durie is correct.

    2. You're welcome.

      Oh, we'll catch him out on something yet! Just kidding. :-)

  2. I think the terms need to change if we're going to win this war. Drop the word terrorist for Islamic violence, and use instead the word: Jihadist Violence. These guys are engaging in jihad in order to martyr themselves. They aren't interested in this life on earth, but the next life. Therefore, 'terrorist' does not suit.

    IRA violence was terrorism, because it had the purpose of changing things on earth, and was part of a political group with an ideology and certain goals.

    The guy who ran down Muslims outside the mosque was not a terrorist, nor was he a jihadist, he was simply vengeful.

    So, it would help the cause enormously if we started naming acts correctly. Begin using Jihadist instead of terrorist, Jihadist Violence instead of Islamist/Islamic Violence, and instead of ‘victims of terror’: ‘victims of Jihad.’

    1. Anonymous (catchy name, that) writes:

      "Drop the word terrorist for Islamic violence, and use instead the word: Jihadist Violence."

      Personally, I don't think the term "terrorist" is incorrect.

      But I do agree that it doesn't make use of known and very useful knowledge: That, when carried out by Muslims, the terrorist act is done in accordance with a well-known and clearly defined doctrine. It's "by the book" Jihad.

      I think it's very difficult -- almost incomprehensible -- for Kafirs to swallow that a "RELIGION" can so clearly, adamantly, consistently advocate, applaud and REQUIRE its followers to carry out such terrorist acts.

      Regarding "changing things on earth" ... yes, the IRA did aim to do that. But Socialism isn't as "this worldly" as it first appears. There is a definite mystical aspect to Socialism and Communism.

      Going back to Islam & Jihad, it isn't just about the afterlife. The doctrine of Jihad has many, many, many "this world" goals.

      Controlling territory and the individuals within that territory is a big part Jihad (and Sharia).

      "... it would help the cause enormously if we started naming acts correctly."

      True. Just want to point out that the term TERROR is very explicitly stated in Islamic texts. To "strike terror" into the heart of the Kafir.

      So, you could argue, that certain kinds of Jihad really are terror-ism. i.e. A systematic use of terror in order to accomplish a this-world goal.

      Finally ... among the very clear this-world goals of Jihad & Sharia are sex (of the systematic rape kind) and plunder from both the spoils of war and the ongoing subjugation and humiliation of the conquered unbelievers.

    2. Agreed, but for the jihadi, "killing and being killed on the path of Allah" is really the only sure fire way of achieving Islamic salvation, or the 72 virgins.

  3. The extremism claim becomes even more incongruous when one considers a century of Islamic Jihadi terror against the Jews in the Holy Land. For some reason when Jihad was called upon the Jews it is not extremism but a social anticolonialist phenomenon. Only when directed at Europeans Russians Chinese Americans it suddenly changes into Extremism.

  4. Replace "What would Jesus do?" with "What would Mohummad do?"

    The Reformation was a "getting back to basics" movement: lets return to the teachings of Jesus. What would an Islamic "getting back to basics" look like?

    Any solution is going to have to walk a fine line. I personally like the ideas of Maadi Nawaz: not perfect but realistic.


    1. Nick asks:

      // What would an Islamic "getting back to basics" look like?//

      Since there is neither Love nor Logos in Islam, AND there is hostility to both those principles -- in themselves AND because they are Kafir principles -- I know what it would NOT look like.

      // Any solution is going to have to walk a fine line. //

      If by "fine line" Nick means, we should treat Muslims respectfully, sure.

      Hopefully, such respect doesn't involve going along with myths such as "The Golden Age of Islam" simply to avoid offence.

      It would be helpful to treat Apostates respectfully.

      On the other hand, Ideologically/theologically, there are no fine lines.

      Truth is very rude.


Comments are moderated. Avoid profanities or foul language. Stay on topic. Avoid ad hominem attacks. Posts which violate these principles or are deemed offensive in any way will be deleted.