Psychology: Deradicalizing Muslim terrorists (very interesting)

nocompulsion.com ^ | Nicolai Sennels

[DuncanWaring]

Well done.

[Carry_Okie]

So I take it you are in agreement with the legal argument in posts 144-115?

[kiryandil]

You have the right of it in your posts #114 & #115.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3390585/posts?page=114#114

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3390585/posts?page=115#115

Nice touch here:

Carry_Okie wrote: ...one that specifically commits them to violate the Constitution; else they face the penalty of death for apostasy.

I'll be using THAT one in the future. :)

I used to be a Constitutionalist when I first joined this site way back when.

After many years, I realized that the strategy of the ProgTard termites was to "quibble" over every word in the Constitution, seeking to tear it apart through "deconstructionism". You know the drill: "well regulated Militia", etc., etc. Apply "solution" liberally to rest of Constitution.

One day, I realized that the foundation of the "structure" known as the Constitution was the Declaration.

Now, the Constitution is fairly lengthy in relation to the Declaration, and it has many more avenues of attack available in it.

I then suddenly realized that there's one line in the Declaration that is stronger than any fortress that has ever been built on this Earth:

...that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

Now, ProgTards like to pretend that the Constitution "grants" you your Natural Rights, because they can strip you of them once the Constitution collapses into termite-chewed dust.

The Declaration is like a silver cross on a vampire to ProgTards. Many of them deny a Creator, so when you (for example) raise the silver cross of "endowed by [my] Creator with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" to their arguments, their tiny little heads explode.

I call them "Declaration Deniers", because it simplifies matters.

You either accept the Declaration, or you don't. And from the Declaration flows the broad river of the Constitution...

Muslims are Declaration Deniers, I reckon.

[kiryandil]

Sorry.

I was busy agreeing with you, and writing it up. :)

[kiryandil]

I pinged you second because I saw and read your #114 & #115.

Nicely done. :)

[dfwgator]

This did a pretty good job of "Deradicalizing" the Japs.

[kiryandil]

MamaTexan, as you know, I have a lot of respect for your knowledge of Constitutional history.

Gads. No WONDER she's so touchy about it.

Them Texicans are pretty wrapped up in that stuff, being as how they had their original Republic of Texas founding documents, and then condescended to pay obeisance to our Constitution. :)

[Taxman]

You have a firm grasp of the obvious!

[Taxman]

Well said! Please allow me to elaborate a bit:

Mohammed was not the first terrorist in World History, but he has been the most successful, by far.

Mohammed is held to be the “perfect” man by Moslems, and ALL Moslems are called by the their “holy books” to emulate his life.

And, what a life!

Between 622 and 632 AC, Mohammed was, as mentioned, a VERY successful terrorist, He was also a pedophile, a murderer, a liar, and rapist. He thieved, plundered and warred his way across a good part of the Middle East (and his followers continued that activity, all too well!), and was an accomplished slaver!

Bottom line? In excess of 270,000,000 non-Moslems have died because Mohammed was not killed in 622 AD!

[MamaTexan]

Good Morning, CO!

---

The Constitution is a social contract among "We the people of the United States of America." Muslims have NO INTENTION of ever respecting that social contract. To them, you are not deserving respect for your rights or the Constitution as a fellow citizen participant in that contract.

I understand fully what you're saying, and I even agree. I never considered islam to be a religion as it doesn't promote the betterment of all mankind, but the subjugation of everything else.

But coming to a consensus among ourselves isn't the problem.

The problem is, as a country, we don't get to judge someone else's conscience. We can't assume guilt, it must be proven. Doing so is both hypocritical and dangerous, as it can create a legalistic weapon that can too easily be used for a purpose for which it was never intended.

Keeping that in mind, the only viable way I could see in extracting islam's adherents from the country while remaining true to the Constitution is by their nationality, not their religion. THEN we can figure out how to deal with the home grown ones.

---

BTW - as you can probably tell, this is one of those 'snowball' threads...you know - the ones where you say something, then your statement gets so twisted around by other posters that you know there's no way you'll manage to straighten it back out again, so you just sorta give up..

[Travis McGee]

"BTW, I wish to add that Muslims are not only not participants in the Constitutional social contract, they are bound to Sharia, yet another social contract that stands in opposition to the first, one that specifically commits them to violate the Constitution; else they face the penalty of death for apostasy. Frankly, to my mind, to be a Muslim is to renounce one's US citizenship."

That will be the common understanding in a few years, after the jihad car bombs etc begin to explode across Europe on a daily basis.

[Carry_Okie]

We can't assume guilt, it must be proven.

I think it can be, from the Quran itself.

Doing so is both hypocritical and dangerous, as it can create a legalistic weapon that can too easily be used for a purpose for which it was never intended.

Judaism suffers the same problem politically, Christianity not so much, for reasons I can discuss at length if you are interested.

I could see in extracting islam's adherents from the country while remaining true to the Constitution is by their nationality, not their religion.

There is such a thing as renouncing one's citizenship, which requires then not so much proof beyond a reasonable doubt as a finding. The combination of the Shahada and the death penalty of apostasy will do. Frankly, that one is easy and shares nothing pf a type with Judaism. Sadly, those guys who run our court system also wear those not so funny red hats. I'm not sanguine about how that would turn out.

BTW - as you can probably tell, this is one of those 'snowball' threads...

Ah, but after a time, the weather changes, the light appears (ahem!), and the snowman melts to its essences, a carrot, two sticks, and a few lumps of coal. Put them in the hat and go on. (I suspect you can tell, I hate this kind of mysticism by analogy that putridly infuses too many religions today... it is ignorance under the guise of wisdom).

Good Morning to you, MamaTexan, you're not done. It's why you were called. Yeah, you know who. :-)

[MamaTexan]

Yeah, you know who. :-)

(grins) I won't presume to correct you on that.

Before I start, I'd like to thank you for stepping into the conversation. I know we're familiar enough to each other you don't automatically assume I'm a muslim apologist of some kind. Sometimes I think people just react instead of thinking about things.

Anyway -
I think it can be, from the Quran itself.

True, but therin lies the crux of the matter - if we accept the obvious by acknowledging ours is a Christian nation, do we not violate that ideal by using the tenants of a different set of beliefs to judge others? Do we not, in fact violate the 'judge not, lest ye be judged' concept of Christianity?

I think in order to avoid such philosophical conundrums, the country would be better served by targeting nationality, not religion.

----

There is such a thing as renouncing one's citizenship, which requires then not so much proof beyond a reasonable doubt as a finding.

True, but a law refusing to accept renunciation from certain countries wouldn't be out of line. If they want to renounce, force them to go home to their own countries to do it.

---

Sadly, those guys who run our court system also wear those not so funny red hats. I'm not sanguine about how that would turn out.

Frankly, neither am I. The real truth of the matter is that it's all a moot point unless and until we get control of our borders...but that's a subject for another thread. :-)

[Carry_Okie]

I know we're familiar enough to each other you don't automatically assume I'm a muslim apologist of some kind.

I don't think that is the problem they have. Lacking the knowledge of legal means to expel Islam under the First Amendment, they invoke Lincoln's "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact" "clause" as an excuse to take their means outside it, when such isn't necessary once one remembers the Preamble. Out of a legitimate sense of urgency, they don't look at the eventual unintended consequences. They're always there. Just like abortion serves a (to them) "useful" demographic purpose (affecting mainly welfare babies), what it does to us is much worse.

True, but therin lies the crux of the matter - if we accept the obvious by acknowledging ours is a Christian nation,

I don't think that is necessary to the proof. Islam has uniquely disqualifying attributes, as are manifested in its behavior, simply from a mechanistic perspective. They MUST kill or force into submission followers of ALL other religions under penalty of death, meaning that for the dhimmitude there is no possibility of free exercise. Islam alone allows no other belief enforced on pain of death; it is the ultimate vow. Yes, I know that it tolerates "people of the book" to exist, but there is no equal treatment under the law. Even Judaism acknowledges other people who follow other gods without meaning to kill them all if they don't worship the G_d of Abraham. The only restriction there is that the Torah specifies there may not be any followers of any other gods within Israel itself except as visitors.

Sometime I'd love to go over Genesis 16 with you. It would blow your mind. Send me a FReepmail if you're interested.

I think in order to avoid such philosophical conundrums, the country would be better served by targeting nationality, not religion.

It's easier, but it won't work, or as we say in mathematics, necessary but not sufficient. Sometimes, forcing oneself to face said conundra is the path we must take. C'mon, you know you'd like that anyway. ;-)

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Good work!

I’ve never read a better analysis of the Islamo-terrorist mind and culture.

[RoosterRedux]

Check this out. This is a video link I posted of the same psychologist discussing the subject in even greater detail. Since it is a long video, I recommend skipping around.

Psychology of Islam and Muslims (video)

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Arthur Wildfire! March.

[Carry_Okie]

As an adjunct to what I've said above, I suspect there is an aspect shared by the Declaration and the Constitution upon which you might yet wish to muse: It is their governing use of the word "We." It's one thing to cite the Natural Rights of humans. It is quite another to dedicate one's life to those principals FOR ANY ANOTHER CITIZEN-MEMBER on penalty of all that one possesses, including life itself. Hence there is a coupling of the two documents a little artful parsing makes clear: "We hold these truths to be self evident, [list citing the Creator]" therefore "...we mutually pledge to each other, our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor," and "We the people... do ordain and establish." This IS the original oath of American citizenship, the principles and specifications under which "WE" govern ourselves. The more I think about it, the more I realize one should not be allowed voting rights without understanding and making this pledge, with but the subtle change substituting the word "I" for "we" (try it and you'll see what I mean). These specific principles are essential to being an American. One cannot be a member of the America body politic without that sinew. One cannot expect others to lay down their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor in our defense unless we each have freely made that mutual pledge to do the same for them.

The corollary is that to shed or renounce that sinew, is to no longer be a member of that mutual pledge. Therefore, by rescinding that pledge, one is no longer deserving of its mutual protections (by the well regulated milita for example).

Now, posit this logical couplet against the Shahada and you'll see what I mean about it. In it there is not even a mention of the self making any pledge; one becomes by acknowledgment a non-entity if you will. It is acknowledgment of another divine and unlimited power rather than to each other ("we"). It is to commit one's life, fortune, and Sacred Honor to force ALL to submit to that power without any operating constraint (never mind that the details of its tenets and statutes are abhorrent to those listed in the Declaration and Constitution respectively). Because of that limitless power, one offers and therefore loses one's Life, Fortune, and Sacred Honor. There is nothing left of a person to commit to ANY other, thus denying the mutual commitment essential to specifically American citizenship. This is why the Shahada is effectively a renunciation of American citizenship, because it is a renunciation of a commitment to ANY person or country. There is no Caesar to whom to render, no human authority acknowledged of any kind other than a quasi-hereditary hierarchy descended from Mohammad supposedly wielding divine authority whose nature of and qualification for accession goes unspecified.

BTW, I had not before recognized in the last phrase of the Declaration that it elevates one's property to a status coequal with life itself and duty to G_d. Nice touch there.

[kiryandil]

Thanks for this post.

[Carry_Okie]

To which I should have added:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, [list citing the Creator]" therefore "...we mutually pledge to each other, our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor," and "We the people... do ordain and establish" powers specifically limited to that purpose.

I guess you could call this thinking out loud.