“Terrorism is to do with everything except Islam.”

Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, Al Haram Mosque and Kaaba Saudi Arabia
There are two essential errors of thought that stand in the way of eradicating terrorism—or, simply relegating it to the back of the bus, as just part of the low-level, incidental evil that will probably always measurably unsettle humanity.

  1. The idea that’s it’s somehow not ideologically tied primarily to the religion of Islam.

  2. Hand wringing over collateral death and destruction, leading to the tying of hands in terms of effective and lasting action.

I aim to give you reasonable cause to dismiss both of those.

First of all, understand that the entirety of the schtick that goes ‘terrorists aren’t true Muslims’ is actually an informal logical fallacy known as No True Scotsman. Definition:

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim (“no Scotsman would do such a thing”), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule (“no true Scotsman would do such a thing”).[2]

In practical parlance, it takes this form:

Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an “ad hoc rescue” of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is an example of the fallacy:[3]

Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Person B: “But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge.”
Person A: “Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

You can find it all the time, even amongst communists who assert that the USSR and China weren’t truly communist countries, or even libertarians who assert that we don’t have true capitalism. The latter charge has merit, and has been well differentiated by decent libertarians and anarchists, but I’ll save that digression for another post someday.

I’ve already dealt with the perfectly valid claim that most Muslims are peaceful. They’re simply pathetically irrelevant, because their chief concern is to draw meaningless distinctions, and not to condemn terrorism within their religious ranks.

Islam is not a “religion of peace.” Christianity is not a “religion of peace.” Judaism is not a “religion of peace.” The No True Scotsman applies to all, because whenever someone does something evil in the explicit name of any of these religions, the first thing everyone does is to define them out of the religion. Ever purused Basically, you can find Godly authority for any atrocity you want, and it’s applicable to both Christians and Jews.

My doG, you seemingly can’t even call Buddhism a religion of peace.

Mark Steyn has a good piece on this topic: The Week in Nothing to do with Islam.

Quite. Secretary Kerry doesn’t care what you name it as long as you don’t name it “Islam”. Because the not-naming of Islam is more important than the actual naming of whatever it is. Even the qualification that many have been careful to make over the years – of course, most Muslims aren’t terrorists but an awful lot of terrorists unfortunately happen to be Muslim – will no longer suffice. As President-in-waiting Hillary Clinton assures us:

Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

So not only is terrorism nothing to do with Islam, but Muslims have “nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism”. She said this a few hours before yet another US citizen was killed by terrorists shouting “Allahu Akbar!” – this time in a mass slaughter at the Radisson Hotel in Bamako, Mali. Hostages were given a stark choice: if they could recite from the Koran, they would live; if they were incapable of reciting from the Koran, they would die. So whoever these terrorists were – “you name it” – they knew enough about Islam to be able to recognize quotations from the Koran. Yet they can’t be Muslims because Muslims have “nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism”.

It continues, but the penultimate paragraph is where I gleaned the title to this post.

And so now we have the considered position of Kerry, Clinton and Obama: Terrorism is to do with everything except Islam.

In the end, all this hand waving amounts to nothing more than methinks thou dost protest too much.

…Now to take on the 2nd error, there can be no true war against this stuff—in order to really, really defeat it into annihilation forever—until people come to grips with #1, realize that ISIS or ISIL now presides over territory and calls itself a state, and that there are innocent people there. Now, yes, I just used a tongue-in-cheek version of the aforementioned fallacy but note the difference. I’m not using it to define “war,” but rather to characterize it. So, most true Muslims aren’t terrorists is a characterization, not a definition. See?

Allow me to show you a bunch of innocent children. This will take 30 minutes of your time, but there’s no way around that. If you’re a human like me, your heart should ache at what you will see. We’re talking 3-5 year old kids being indoctrinated daily with hands-on instruction in the use of Kalashnikov, hand grenades, and hand guns.

The indoctrination of the children is actually patient and kind, making it all the more heartbreaking. You can imagine what a waste it is, that the guy featured in those kids’ indoctrination isn’t a well compensated teacher of wholesome values almost anywhere else, in almost any other circumstance.

It’s a PBS Frontline piece that just came out a couple of days ago, and is very remarkable: ISIS in Afghanistan.

Screen Shot 2015-11-22 at 12.42.35 PM

What’s remarkable is that heroic journalist Najibullah Quraishi managed to get in, conduct interviews, shoot footage, and get back out with his life intact. Again, it ought not be that surprising, had you read The Atlantic piece I previously wrote about.

It’s against this backdrop that Najibullah Quraishi returned home to Afghanistan this past summer to report on the recent emergence there of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

“I’ve been embedded with the Taliban many, many times,” Quraishi says in his new FRONTLINE documentary, ISIS in Afghanistan. “But when I first heard about ISIS in Afghanistan, I was shocked. I was thinking, ‘Why ISIS in Afghanistan? What are they doing in my country?’”

What he witnessed was as disturbing for him as it was confounding — former members of the Taliban joining ranks with militants waiving the black flag of ISIS in multiple districts across eastern Afghanistan and training a new generation of jihadis.

In the district of Shaigal, Quraishi found ISIS fighters living among the locals, who told him local children are educated by the Islamic State from the age of three. At one school he visited, he filmed an instructor showing children how to shoot a Kalashnikov, how to throw hand grenades and preaching to them about the ways of jihad. In Chapa Dara district, a commander introduced him to two teenagers who he said were trained to be ISIS suicide bombers.

I took this screen clip during the documentary for the sole purpose of reminding you of my post, The Walking Dead And The Metaphysics of ISIS.


ISIS fighters and suicide bombers being converted into The Walking Dead.

I dunno, folks. Some in comments are telling me I’m descending into madness. What do you think? Before you answer, though, at least understand how I really think. This explains it, and I’ve been a practitioner for just about 20 years, and I’d already been exposed to Yasuhiko Kimura for a few years before that.

Basically, I understand that some paradigms are better for some things, at some times, than others. I’m paradigm agnostic, though with principled qualifications.

In the case of collateral damage, what can you possibly do when the whole society is involved in the war effort, as the Frontline video makes clear? They are literally forming a whole top-to-bottom society with the explicit aim of the domination and destruction of all we value. We literally have nothing to offer them, as the utter destruction of anything and everything we could offer is their stated aim.

Consider the ‘Al-Hayat’ Editor: The World Must Launch World War Against Terror; Arab, Muslim World Must Examine Itself. Of Charnel and Al-Hayat, Reason writes:

“Charbel is the editor-in-chief of the Saudi-owned daily, which has been described in the past as ‘far and away the best and most intensely read Arab newspaper,’ certainly among Arabs living outside the Middle East.”

Charbel writes (translation by MEMRI):

 “Do not say your country is far [from these events]. Do not delude yourself that your capital is well-protected. This is a war unlike anything we have previously experienced or read about. This is a world war [declared by ISIS] in order to clash with the entire world: with anyone who does not adopt its inflexible and closed-minded thought patterns and anyone who does not drink from the same fountain. Its objective is to take countries back to the Stone Age and transform [the members of] the Muslim diaspora and Muslim minorities into [living] bombs. [This war] is an comprehensive plan to eliminate the right to differ [in opinion or belief], as well as any possibility of coexistence and progress. This war is a pitch black night that is trying to extinguish the lights of liberty and dignity.

“In a war of this kind you have to choose sides. Don’t evade and don’t wring your hands. There is an urgent need to understand the origins of this predatory dinosaur. But take care not to justify the murder with the excuse that Muslims in Europe are marginalized and frustrated, and suffer from poverty and oppression here or there. Oppression does not justify the spreading of darkness. Nothing permits this itinerant slaughter.

Clear enough? Let Andrew Neil both raise your ire and inspire.

In closing, I hope you watched that Frontline piece and saw the faces of all those boys and girls. I saw this wonderful NatGeo video this morning and the first thing that came to my mind is how their faces and eyes might look if they were being exposed to this.

We’ll get past this, once men and women of good conscience man and woman the fuck up and stop worrying about hurting feelings or killing those who refuse to get out of the way or simply exist as part of the social support mechanism.

I’m on board now.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Daniel F on November 22, 2015 at 14:57

    Reading the translation of that Arab newspaper, you realize that most straight-thinking Arabs and Muslims must think our “leaders” are bat-shit crazy with what comes out of their mouths.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 22, 2015 at 15:30

      We have the left progressive diversitatian multicultural victimhood to contend with.

      • Daniel F on November 22, 2015 at 17:38

        True, but a lot of the “right”‘s problem is buying into the left’s frame: The right is always half-apologetic when presenting its own views, implicitly acknowedging that there is something somehow shameful or wrong in what they believe. This always gives the left the upper hand.

        Compare with Trump: ZFG. Owns his own frame. No apologies. “Black crime is an issue. Needs to be discussed.” “Muslim immigration is an issue. Needs to be addressed.”

        No bending of the knee in the left’s direction of the left, or provisos and toning down of the message, etc.

        We suffer from Liberal Hegemony: i.e. everybody — without realizing it — accepting the left’s framing of all issues. It makes for a very weak opposition. The answer, a la Trump, is to reframe.

        To put it in terms of the Kimura stuff you posted on: the American right lives within the leftist paradigm. Not only do they not know how to get out of it; they don’t even realize they’re in it.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 22, 2015 at 22:30

        I agree with you, Daniel.

      • Perry on November 30, 2015 at 07:01

        Bravo Daniel!

  2. Eric on November 23, 2015 at 06:35

    I guess it’s just easier to blame “the left” than try to follow any number of money trails to explain why this situation was allowed to develop and why it will be allowed to continue instead of any swift and decisive action being taken.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 23, 2015 at 07:16

      Nothing preculdes anyone from doing both. You’re offering a false alternative.

      Moreover, while it’s certainly instructive to understand the elements that gave rise to NAZI Germany, including its punishing reparations payments for WWI, it was irrelevent in terms of coming to grips with what had to be done.

      Care to venture a guess which side of the political spectrum was most opposed to doing anything? Which of the intelligensia initially adored Hitler as much as they eventually came to adore Stalin & Mao?

  3. Eric on November 23, 2015 at 09:19

    So you really believe that its the left that’s preventing what needs to be done from being done? You probably think that was the problem in Vietnam also, right?

    The Frontline piece is very interesting. The maniacs are able to pay $700/mo which seems to be more than the Taliban or the police are able to pay gun slingers. Where does the money come from? I don’t believe that bombing them is going to out those liasons, that’s not at argument against hitting them, I’m just saying why try to just treat the symptom while ignoring the underlying cause? That’s the American way I guess.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 23, 2015 at 09:51

      “I’m just saying why try to just treat the symptom while ignoring the underlying cause? That’s the American way I guess.”

      I love stupid, misapplied bromides and slogans.

      When someone’s heart is stopped, or they’re not breathing, you don’t stand around telling everyone how we need to get them back and take lab tests to understand the underlying cause.

      But I’m tired of giving the left a pass on this. They do it on purpose.

  4. Richard Nikoley on November 23, 2015 at 09:47

    “So you really believe that its the left that’s preventing what needs to be done from being done? You probably think that was the problem in Vietnam also, right?”

    There was no dispute about how VietNam was a financed puppet war, just like Korea. Back then, the commies at least had the decency to limit things to a theater of war.

    Things have changed. Lefties never change.

    “So you really believe that its the left…” It’s virtually a-priori, you don’t even need to get up off the couch to know it’s true.

    Here’s a good expose of the Jive Talker-In-Chief


    The [Obama Regime’s] botched campaign against ISIS is a replay of the disaster in Afghanistan complete with ridiculous rules of engagement, blatant administration lies and no plan for victory. But there can’t be a plan for victory because when Obama gets past the buzzwords, he begins talking about addressing root causes.

    And you don’t win wars by addressing root causes. That’s just a euphemism for appeasement.

    Addressing root causes means blaming Islamic terrorism on everything from colonialism to global warming. It doesn’t mean defeating it, but finding new ways to blame it on the West.

    Obama and his political allies believe that crime can’t be fought with cops and wars can’t be won with soldiers. The only answer lies in addressing the root causes which, after all the prattling about climate change and colonialism, really come down to the Marxist explanation of inequality.

    When reporters ask Obama how he plans to win the war, he smirks tiredly at them and launches into another condescending explanation about how the situation is far too complicated for anything as simple as bombs to work. Underneath that explanation is the belief that wars are unwindable.

    Obama knows that Americans won’t accept “war just doesn’t work” as an answer to Islamic terrorism. So he demonstrates to them that wars don’t work by fighting wars that are meant to fail.
    In Afghanistan, he bled American soldiers as hard as possible with vicious rules of engagement that favored the Taliban to destroy support for a war that most of the country had formerly backed. By blowing the war, Obama was not only sabotaging the specific implementation of a policy he opposed, but the general idea behind it. His failed wars are meant to teach Americans that war doesn’t work.

    The unspoken idea that informs his strategy is that American power is the root cause of the problems in the region. Destroying ISIS would solve nothing. Containing American power is the real answer.

    Obama does not have a strategy for defeating ISIS. He has a strategy for defeating America.

    Whatever rhetoric he tosses out, his actual strategy is to respond to public pressure by doing the least he can possibly do. He will carry out drone strikes, not because they’re effective, but because they inflict the fewest casualties on the enemy.

    He may try to contain the enemy, not because he cares about ISIS, but because he wants to prevent Americans from “overreacting” and demanding harsher measures against the Islamic State. Instead of fighting to win wars, he seeks to deescalate them. If public pressure forces him to go beyond drones, he will authorize the fewest air strikes possible. If he is forced to send in ground troops, he will see to it that they have the least protection and the greatest vulnerability to ISIS attacks.

    Just like in Afghanistan.

    Obama would like ISIS to go away. Not because they engage in the ethnic cleansing, mass murder and mass rape of non-Muslims, but because they wake the sleeping giant of the United States.

    And so his idea of war is fighting an informational conflict against Americans. When Muslim terrorists commit an atrocity so horrifying that public pressure forces him to respond, he lies to Americans. Each time his Baghdad Bob act is shattered by another Islamic terrorist attack, he piles on even more lies.

    Any strategy that Obama offers against ISIS will consist of more of the same lies and word games. His apologists will now debate the meaning of “containment” and whether he succeeded in defining it so narrowly on his own terms that he can claim to have accomplished it. But it really doesn’t matter what his meaning of “containment” or “is” is. Failure by any other name smells just as terrible.

    Obama responded to ISIS by denying it’s a threat. Once that stopped being a viable strategy, he began to stall for time. And he’s still stalling for time, not to beat ISIS, but to wait until ISIS falls out of the headlines. That has been his approach to all his scandals from ObamaCare to the IRS to the VA.

    Lie like crazy and wait for people to forget about it and turn their attention to something else.

    This is a containment strategy, but not for ISIS. It’s a containment strategy for America. Obama isn’t trying to bottle up ISIS except as a means of bottling up America. He doesn’t see the Caliph of the Islamic State as the real threat, but the average American who watches the latest beheading on the news and wonders why his government doesn’t do something about it. To the left it isn’t the Caliph of ISIS who starts the wars we ought to worry about, but Joe in Tennessee, Bill in California or Pete in Minnesota.

    That is why Obama sounds bored when talking about beating ISIS, but heats up when the conversation turns to fighting Republicans. It’s why Hillary Clinton named Republicans, not ISIS, as her enemy.

    The left is not interested in making war on ISIS. It is too busy making war on America….


    And to pile on top of that, we have the three manipulative liars (Obama, Hillary, Sanders) telling us that global warming is the cause of this.

    Expect to see Jews and Christians in the hot region taking up suicide vests soon.

    This is how very stupid they know lefties are. Both the global warming narrative (caused by American free enterprise) and the terrorism narrative (caused by American free enterprise) are collapsing, so what to do?

    Integrate them, so that lefties go “WOW, I never think”….uh, “never thought of that.”

  5. Eric on November 23, 2015 at 10:34

    Well thanks for spelling it out then: so it’s all Obama’s fault because he’s following the leftie agenda that he shares with other lefties, for idealogical reasons, because they’re dummies and/or hate America. I don’t buy that whole narrative. Obama is just a pawn. The reason the situation is being allowed to escalate and spread is that serves the strategy of powerful interests and it’s not because of any ideology it’s just for more power, as in money. Wars are not fought for ideology or religion they just make dumb people believe that, that’s a priori.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 23, 2015 at 11:13

      And the US Preidency is not a powerful interest.

      You’re pretty dense. While corporations earn record profits internationally in peace or war, what they really want is war.

      Philosophy rules the world. Ever seen a church, temple or shrine?

      NAZIism was ideology. Communism was ideology. Islamism is ideology.

      The whole “follow the money schtick” is a misapplication by leftists of what applies to petty crimes, to geopolitics. Religion and ideology are the geopolitics that underly all money trails.

      Leftists never like to acknowledge that, because they work the more fundamental ideology aspect.

  6. Eric on November 23, 2015 at 11:32

    Bullshit, people only fight communist revolutions because they’re starving, no money for food you see! Sunnis in Iraq and Taliban in Afghanistan both want both the Americans and the maniacs out, they don’t want to take over the world. This is not petty crime, this is the shadowy world of global power plays, the real reason wars are fought, they just use ideology to get dumb people riled up. People are domestic animals bred to be easy to manipulate. Now you have this boogeyman that wants to take over the world so the whole world can be scared, they use fear to control people, that’s a priori too. control = power = money and stuff = more power = and so on…

    • GTR on November 23, 2015 at 12:47

      @Eric “people only fight communist revolutions because they’re starving”

      About Lenin’s father “Soon after their wedding, Ilya obtained a job in Nizhny Novgorod, rising to become Director of Primary Schools in the Simbirsk district six years later. Five years after that, he was promoted to Director of Public Schools for the province, overseeing the foundation of over 450 schools as a part of the government’s plans for modernisation. Awarded the Order of St. Vladimir, he became a hereditary nobleman.[5]”

      Lenin’s mother “Hailing from a relatively prosperous background”

      Lenin’s first job: “Vladimir remained in Samara for several years, in January 1892 being employed as a legal assistant for a regional court, before gaining a job with a local lawyer. ”

      Doesn’t look like a starving person.

      Joseph Stalin came from a poor background, but because of his talents he could try choose to undertake 3 jobs:
      1) Being an orthodox priest – he had actually been studying in a seminary before becoming a communist (switching from one ideology to another).
      2) Being a poet – he wrote some poetry.
      3) Being a gangster – having a cunning for that

    • Richard Nikoley on November 23, 2015 at 14:39

      You’re still avoiding the point in your endless advocacy of doing anything much but search for causes.

      It does not matter that people were starving near the turn of the 20th Century, so were susceptible to the ideological influences that led to the support of communist revolutions in Russia and then China.

      The pertinent fact is that even more people starved and in many cases where it wasn’t plain incometence and ideology over economics, it was politically and institutionally designed.

      It had to come to an end, that’s all, and at that scale, it finally did. Another great leftist social engineering scheme bites the dust at a cost of over 100 million people.

      And now ISIS has to go.

      • Eric on November 23, 2015 at 19:03

        I totally agree that those motherfuckers have to go, I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Unfortunately they aren’t going anywhere and I’m just trying to point out the real reasons behind that, in general, I don’t have any specific conspiracy theories but it certainly is one, that should be obvious.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 23, 2015 at 19:13

        Well, agreed, least in part.

        They have to go. The will to do so, if they mean their stated aims, will come about, and it won’t involve the Apologist-in-Chief.

  7. Eric on November 23, 2015 at 13:05

    Lenin and Stalin got people riled up with ideology, there were other forces at work to make it actually happen.

  8. karl on November 23, 2015 at 14:54

    “I dunno, folks. Some in comments are telling me I’m descending into madness”.
    Actually, Richard, your last few posts were real eye openers. While the whole paleo-not-paleo evolution was the reason i started to follow you in the first place, as a more entertaining option than Art’s The Vainy (pun intended), I love you more for your clear views on society. And your honesty. (Cabo!). I’ve been an atheist all my conscious life, knowing that religion is at the core of all evil in the world. Sadly, contrarily to what some are thinking, religion is not slowly dying. It is radicalizing and very true, the silent majority is irrelevant.
    DoG, living in France you even got me thinking of gun possession. You know its not done here, but man,do I wish to have a big gun in my hand if ever one of these walking dead would come in sight…

    • Richard Nikoley on November 23, 2015 at 15:54

      Karl, sir, you have no idea how a comment like that makes my whole fucking day.

      I’d do anything to help enlighten one single mind and I’ve never had grand designs. I never try to game Google or do fancy SEO shit. I’d rather just write a post every day I can, which is most days. Twelve years, now, about 4,250 and counting.

      I don’t mind being dismissed but I try hard that some few might say ‘wait, he’s doing pretty OK, ups and downs, but he for sure lives on his own terms and by his own authority and ideas, for better or worse.’

      For better or worse, but that you tryly get to either congratulate or blame yourself is essentially the only thing I’m selling.

      • Amy on November 24, 2015 at 10:16

        “I don’t mind being dismissed”

        Bwuhar. Really?! Cuz I’d-a bet my inheritance that being categorically dismissed was among your top peeves. At least, when it first happens. You adjust fast, though (Cabo!). 😉

        That said…

      • Amy on November 24, 2015 at 10:17

        You really need an edit button on these comments for when the keyboard malfunctions and “Post Comment” gets hit before ready. It’s happened to me a few times before.


        “I try hard that some few might say ‘wait, he’s doing pretty OK, ups and downs, but he for sure lives on his own terms and by his own authority and ideas, for better or worse.’”

        That’s honestly why I’m still hanging around. For whatever that’s worth to you.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 24, 2015 at 10:35

        Stop fucking complaining about my blog platform, Amy. 😉

        In reference to the fist comment you screwed up by clicking shit wrong, you have a point but my deal has always been schtick. It used to work marvelously and many people got it, but everything always changes.

        Principally, I want to influence minds, not behavior. In other words, I want to advance some ideas, take a runny shit on others and if I actually want people to read it, it has to have some je ne sais quoi. So for me, that’s always been my faux OCD / bi-polar / Aspergers spectrum schtick I don’t try at, but allow to flow—but my wife thinks it’s not faux at all. I dunno. I like to think that perhaps the best actors aren’t really acting, or at least not regarding it like some professional task. Isn’t it that people who are the best at what they do make it look easy?

        Accordingly, I have many questions I ask myself because what I do is ridiculously easy for me, I sense it’s on a downward trend in terms of effectiveness.

        Already posted this link but after months of explicitly reading various things concerning being influential, this is what struck me this morning as the most truly relevant thing to me.

        “All I care about is intelligence, honesty and a healthy sense of mischief. It’s interesting, and it works. And here’s the thing, Salon et al: I help more people than you do, because I’ve assembled a crack team around me in which there’s someone who’s good at just about everything. There are nine of us now. There will be more soon.”

  9. Neal Matheson on November 23, 2015 at 21:53

    A series of interesting and well informed posts, thanks Richard. I always like your political posts.
    “things have changes, lefties never change”
    I’m truly shocked by the rhetoric coming out of the UK and US left. I wonder if in the political sphere it is not about appeasing Saudi.
    Karl I live in France too but out in the ulu (country) I doubt there will be any terrorist activity out here as near enough everyone has a gun of some kind.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 24, 2015 at 08:01


      Wow, that makes two of you!!!

      Thanks. I’m well aware that for very many, it’s an eye roll followed by patience and tollerance. On a level I appreciate that because only rarely does someone go off in frustration and I actually need to be more patient about that.

      Goes with the territory.

      I just can’t fathom writing in some singular niche. That would bore me to tears.

  10. sassysquatch on November 24, 2015 at 03:50

    I wish everybody would quit referring to the terrorists as ‘animals’. What an insult to animals.

    I somehow can’t envision Scout strapping on a vest and rushing in to a ‘Best Of’ dog show, barking, “Praise Purina” and lighting himself up!

    • Richard Nikoley on November 24, 2015 at 08:02

      Point taken. On the other hand, you don’t fully know “butt hole.”

    • Richard Nikoley on November 24, 2015 at 08:06

      For instance, what kind of dog, when all comfy, cozy and warm under the covers between the two of you, growls should you dare to move?

      A butt hole, that’s who. Our other nicname for him is “clown.” He can crack you up, that little butt hole.

  11. Skateman on November 24, 2015 at 06:42

    Richard, I still think you’re wrong on grains!, but you’ve opened my eyes up on this topic. The Atlantic article in particular was quite enlightening. My question is this, though. You have characterized ISIS as a death cult, which is correct. You say their religion is not one of peace, which is correct. You say, too, that Christianity, if taken literally is just as egregiously violent/evil as Islam, which is also true. The issue I’m having here is that you seem to be characterizing Islam as worse than Christianity. But it seems like the potential would exist for some Christian group to take the Bible just as literally as ISIS takes the Koran and also become the Walking Dead. Now the question is why this isn’t happening now? Why is it Islam that is birthing a bunch of evil creatures in ISIS and not Christianity? Of course, Christianity has had its evil in the past. Perhaps the reason does indeed have to do with the environment each group finds itself in – one is poor and in a war-torn country without hope. The other is rich and in peaceful countries with opportunity. My guess is that if the U.S. Christian Taliban, for instance, was forced to suddenly exist in Syria like conditions, they wouldn’t behave much differently. This probably doesn’t make any difference as far as what we need to do with the current ISIS zombies. But it should lead us in a certain direction as far as how we should conduct our international affairs going forward (avoid destabilizing regions).

    • Richard Nikoley on November 24, 2015 at 10:15


      Best thoughtful question yet.

      Let’s get one aspect out of the way first. THIS IS HOW PRIMITIVE PEOPLE BEHAVE: Christian, Muslim, or Jew. Their texts are the hitchhiker’s guide to the primitive.

      Now, people can agitate all they like about root causes, and everyone is right and everyone is wrong, because it’s impossible to fully ascertain all this in a changing socio-political-geopolitical landscape. What you need to know is that they are primitives, adherent to a photo-forms of one of the three principle religions of the West.

      Something’s gotta give, now, so finally it clashes, and it’s just a simple equation know, because if you truly integrated that Atlantic piece, then you understand that this is their explicit aim and that they are primitive enough to truly believe that this will usher in god’s divine intervention.

      You see, they know they can’t beat the west. In their delusion, what they believe is that the west is evil, and god is just waiting for them to do their part, then he will do his.

      And this is a major key to defeating them.

      In terms of Christianity and judaism, atrocities committed are so damn rare it’s a news even because it’s so dame rare. But, it happens.


      I put this on Facebook.

      Now, Christians, this is your opportunity to shine. Rather than define her out of the religion, acknowledge that there is authority in the Bible under some interpretations–given the rape, murder, genocide, and slavery commanded by god in the OT–for such brutality, but that [for whatever cognitively dissonant reason] we really have no need of doing that stuff anymore and besides, god doesn’t seem to be commanding it, anymore.


      • Hap on November 24, 2015 at 12:48

        the great American philosopher, Rodney King, uttered his famous phrase….”can’t we all just get along”?

        Actually, not a stupid question or in his case, assertion.

        the answer provided by religion, and I am religious enough, is “not yet and who knows when”. The world is fucked up and no daydreaming or fantasy world nonsense is going to change that…not even denial of religion or preoccupation with the weather or micro aggressions.

        But this is not about religion(except one). People can be fucked up just fine with religion or without it. Our problem right now is that we face a group of motherfuckers who don’t care who they kill, torture, enslave, maim , or subject to endless horrors. And they do this in the name of Islam, quite publically. It is ….as they say, nothing new. Claiming the high ground of morality without religion is no more of a savior than any other false God….with these folks.

        Fuck causes, deal with that later if you must. In the meantime, name them, condemn them, hunt them and deprive them of any resources to support their assembly or capabilities for bloodthirsty terror.

        I’m not saying we should behave like them in order to fight them. But violence will be part of it.

        Once dispatched, we can go back to disputes about perceived slights, imagined and real injustices, and worrying about the weather 50 years from now, even though we can’t predict it 5 days from now, and why there aren’t more women CEO’s. We still won’t be getting along, but we also won’t be burning people alive in animal cages.

      • Dubdub on November 25, 2015 at 08:23


        This is extremely easy. Such behavior from Christians is rare because those that do it from a biblical premise proceed base on a faulty reading of the bible that one will never obtain from any mainstream (and probably nearly any non-mainstream) denominational teaching/interpretation. And the reason for that is that the old testament is precisely that: old. Other than the 10 commandments, all behavioral/moral/spiritual guidance is premised first on the new testament teaching which superseded the old (and when we say old – we mean what God actually revealed/commanded in the old vs what people did of their own accord).

        Whereas, Islamic extremism proceeds from a correct interpretation/reading of the Koran – it is perfectly acceptable to subjugate non-muslims in any way that can be contrived by any thought process to be beneficial to muslims as long as it fits the letter of the words of the Koran.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 25, 2015 at 08:35

        Not sure it’s extremelly easy since Judaism ascribes only to the OT and you don’t see them running around like primitive sewage, Hollywood making movies celebrating it.

        Jews are some of the most intelligent and productive people on the planet, yet at its core, their religion suborns atrocities.

        What gives?

  12. Rita on November 24, 2015 at 08:20

    Richard, I understand your disenchantment with how the Left is framing the debate over ISIS right now, but aren’t you letting the Right off the hook a bit? I mean, let’s not forget who started/bungled “the war on Terror” to begin with…

    • Richard Nikoley on November 24, 2015 at 09:30

      That’s fair, Rita. They did bungle it.

      It was a lack of will, because it’s difficult to imagine how the right would hold off. So, why did they lack the will? Politics, which at that time, now only diminishing, was a juggxrnaught on the narrative.

      But, if you mean “no excuses,” then I agree. To my mind, the right abandoned all the principles they claim to uphold by focussing more on how they would be painted by the left if they had just gone out and finished the whole job.

      This will change. People are beginning to come to grips with the fact that the left’s narrative of socialism, multiculturalism, diversity, victimhood, men are evil…is a suicide mission.

      Anyone up for a fun read that speaks to this?

      And, a short vid yesterday that gets even more to the core of it, by the same guy.

      He’s a self described “flaming homo,” but he’s young, bright, articulate and most importantly, self-taught in how the left is uniformly a river of raw sewage now.

      • Perry on November 24, 2015 at 20:50

        The war in Iraq post surge had been won! Say what you want about how we got there but it was a real victory and it looked like lasting peace with a moderate and SECULAR government in power. There were shia nutjobs still blowing things up but that clean up was only a matter of time. Obama carefully sabotaged the Iraqis with a total pullout, not even air support then pulls the “Iranian deal” out of thin air. He had hilliry send the nutjobs to Syria using a server no one could track. Bastard.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 24, 2015 at 21:03


        STOP thinking for yourself. That’s what news outlets are for!

        I damn almost blogged this yesterday, but I can’t blog every damn thing. Take a reading.

  13. Neal Matheson on November 24, 2015 at 09:49

    Gotta love Milo!

  14. Paul on November 24, 2015 at 15:17


    As a reader, whether I agree or disagree with your posts, I more often than not find your writing challenges my own thinking and I value that.

    I think that a long term plan to eradicate extremism needs to target the older men (more often than women) who stand as proxys to “God” and encourage these acts of terrorism, brainwash young men and manage to insulate them from critical thinking.

    I was bought up in a secular household. My father explained to me why he did not follow a religion and why we as a family did not attend church. I had Christian people who appeared genuinely concerned for my well being and believed with a great deal of conviction that I would spend eternity in hell.

    One issue for me has always been that the men and women who stand up and preach the word of God have an unusual and pervasive influence on those who follow them. Young people buy this shit hook line and sinker as if it is truth.

    Having freed or at least contained the influence of your own religious upbringing on the way you now view the world, to what extent do you think it is critical to eliminate the Islamic preachers that foster and condone this violence. Should they be targeted and eliminated in the war on Isis.

    You see, I really value free speech, and I also recognise the function and purpose and in part the etiology of rage, hatred, ruthlessness and self-righteousness etc.

    How do we as a society defend free speech, and yet deal with men in our own neighbourhoods who take advantage of this free speech to incite violence against us.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 24, 2015 at 15:56

      “…to what extent do you think it is critical to eliminate the Islamic preachers that foster and condone this violence. Should they be targeted and eliminated in the war on Isis.”

      Depends where. In ISIS claimed territory, absolutely. It’s part of their war effort. For the other areas in the Middle East, intense, effective pressure needs to be put on Saudi Arabia that primarily funds it. Nassim Taleb recently wrote this on his Facebook page.

      Since 2001 our policy for fighting Islamic terrorists has been, to put it politely, missing the elephant in the room, sort of like treating symptoms and completely missing the disease. Policymakers and slow-thinking bureaucrats stupidly let terrorism grow by ignoring the roots. So we lost a generation: someone who went to grammar school in Saudi Arabia (our “ally”) after September 11 is now an adult, indocrinated into believing and supporting Salafi violence, hence encouraged to finance it –while we got distracted by the use of complicated weapons and machinery.

      Even worse, the Wahabis have accelerated their brainwashing of East and West Asians with their madrassas, thanks to high oil revenues.

      So instead of invading Iraq, blowing up Jihadi John and individual terrorists, thus causing a multiplication of these agents, it would have been be easier to focus on the source of all problems: the Wahabi/Salafi education and the promotion of intolerance by which a Shiite or a Yazidi or a Christian are deviant people.

      If we absolutely need to put people in Guantanamo, it would be far more effective to ship over there the Salafi preachers, Wahabi clerics, not just the people swayed by their teaching. And if we need to correct the profound Saudi problem, we need to start by sending to them OUR preachers, educating them into tolerance, explaining the very concept of the separation of church and state,. Or, better even, encourage Muslim preachers who promote religious tolerance (“laka dinak wa li dini”) — instead of seeing them ostracized.
      And if you find violence unavoidable, it should be directed at the Saudi and Qatari funders of violence, as well as the Salafi theorists, rather than the young performers.

      PS Beware the usual ISIS crypto-sympathizer who sort of “explains” (that is, justifies) what happened (intentionally targeting civilians) with some other Western event that can hark all the way to the crusades… Otherwise it is presented as “biased”. You can spot such person from a mile away. For them, you cannot condemn ISIS without at the same time trying to be “balanced”? Who are they fooling? This is the technique of bundling problems that can be treated independently and you need to learn to deal with such people by forcing them to discuss the problem of ISIS on its own.


      In terms of here in the US, not much one can do but clearly and explicitly expose it for exactly what it is. Get cameras and recording devices in there, get it on YouTube. Organize marches and picket the living shit out of their mosques.

      Throw rotten tomatoes.

    • Dan on November 24, 2015 at 16:07

      If there was someone in my neighborhood abusing free speech to incite violence against me, I’d confront him, maybe kick his ass.


      • Richard Nikoley on November 24, 2015 at 17:19


        You might need to but probably best to call the cops in order to not get yourself in legal trouble, but be prepared in case the threats/incitement escalate.

        In strict legal terms, you would need to demonstrate that the speech constituted a credible threat (assault, with reasonable belief that it would lead to battery), which free speech does not protect.

        In other words, you can’t point a gun at someone and say “I’m going to kill you” and have it protected speech. In fact, in strict legal terms, they have just given you license to kill them first.

  15. Craig on November 25, 2015 at 07:59

    Non religious liberals often seem to have weirdly inconsistent attitudes toward religion. They get bent out of shape when they are forced by Christians to see a nativity set, or a list of the Ten Commandments on public property, yet seem oddly sanguine when Muslims in other parts of the world demand public conformance with religious based norms. The former is seen as an infringement of their personal freedoms, an attempt to impose a theocratic government, whereas the latter is seen as a sign of their respect for other cultures, and their sensitivity to the past sins of colonialism and imperialism. If Islam were a major religion here, they would have zero tolerance for what they consider culturally acceptable behavior elsewhere.

    Regarding collateral damage: I think there is a natural tension that exists here. We don’t like to see noncombatants and bystanders killed in war, because of our sympathetic and compassionate side. At the same time, few are willing to sacrifice their own existence for the sake of those kind of sentiments or principles. Faced with existential threats, humans will act ruthlessly to ensure their own survival. That is how we roll, like it or not. While the civilian damage incurred by the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrific, it also convinced a brutal and ruthless enemy that we would do whatever was necessary to secure a total victory. I’m very pleased, for selfish reasons, that my father was able to stay as part of a peacekeeping force in Germany, instead of having to transfer to the Pacific theater for the invasion of the Japanese homeland.

    As for whether or not ISIS represents an existential threat to our existence, I don’t know. I doubted it, as long as they confined themselves to acquiring territory and terrorizing people in and around Syria and Iraq. They were successful with that to the extent that other regional powers didn’t feel threatened enough to invest money or soldiers to counter the expansion. But they haven’t really expanded lately, and perhaps are reaching the natural limits of their territorial ambitions. This change in tactics to fund and inspire terrorism outside their borders changes things a bit, though I still am not certain they represent an existential threat.

    I still think it would be preferable to continue to try to bring them down without a major commitment of US ground forces, but given the other countries involved, I don’t know if that is possible. If we do go in, we certainly will win. The messy part is what comes next. I’d hate for our guys to have to occupy parts of Iraq and Syria for the next 50 years. Yet we seem politically unable to stomach the idea of putting our own puppet strong man in place to keep order while we draw down our own forces. The third way, establishing thriving democracies that have respect for political, religious, and ethnic diversity seems to be a Western fantasy.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 25, 2015 at 08:23

      Excellent value add, Craig. I agree with almost everything you wrote.

      My biggest comcern is aftermath as well. Having lived in Japan for five years, I’m partial to the idea that we take the land ISIS has acquired and really transform it, in the way we did Japan. Call it whatever they want, but make a new state out of it, 180 degree of what ISIS envisioned. This serves ideological warefare as well.

      Complete radical transformation. See what happens.

  16. Jane Karlsson on November 26, 2015 at 03:29

    Obama is trapped. He knows ISIS has threatened to use nukes. Nobody knows whether this means dirty bombs or real nukes. Somehow ISIS managed to acquire over 600 oil trucks. Where on earth did it get 600 oil trucks? Were they supplied by people who also have nukes?

    If ISIS fighters have been subjected to torture-based brainwashing, there is nothing that can stop them. If they say they will nuke us, that is probably what they will do.

    Obama can’t prevent any of this. Maybe Putin can. Putin is ex KGB and almost certainly knows a lot more about torture based mind control than Obama does.

    • Neal Matheson on November 26, 2015 at 10:06

      Take heart Jane, the psychos of Isis appear to be militarily inept, moreover they seem quite more interested in other muslims than in Westerners.

  17. Jane Karlsson on November 27, 2015 at 01:59

    It’s us that’s militarily inept. A whole year of bombing and they still have 600 oil trucks. Or they did before the Russians went in.

    We Brits are about to start bombing Syria ourselves. Perhaps the Russians left some oil trucks for us. Or perhaps we’ll be dropping barrel bombs on civilians and pretending Assad did it.

    The new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is trying to say it’s a bad idea, but nobody is listening. It’s either a bad idea because we’ll be nuked, or because we will look silly. I hope it’s the latter.

    • Neal Matheson on November 27, 2015 at 07:04

      Hi Jane,
      Well yes I can’t disagree with that. Corbyn, many pundits and I daresay many British people do not want their Governments to continue the same old futile strategy.
      However I really meant that with a determined ideology, access to weapons and training, a large support network and a nihilistic contempt for life the current Islamic terrorists have actually caused very little damage in Europe.

  18. Jane Karlsson on November 28, 2015 at 03:22

    Neal, I think you have misinterpreted the ‘determined ideology’. These people are almost certainly under mind control. They say these things not because they believe them, but because they will be tortured if they don’t. It’s far more dangerous.

    However I have to say, I find my own government just as alarming as ISIS. I have a nasty feeling they are planning to nuke Syria, saying if they don’t, ISIS will nuke us. I suspect this is what the demonization of Assad and Putin is all about.

    • gabkad on November 28, 2015 at 14:09

      Jane, don’t be paranoid. No body is going to nuke anyone.

      Holland thinks that bombing ISIS into oblivion will get rid of terrorism. It won’t. There’s Muslim extremists all over the globe. It’s like disseminated metastatic cancer.

  19. Jane Karlsson on November 29, 2015 at 05:25

    How do you know, Gabi?

    An unprecedented amount of funding is being withdrawn from public services, partly to pay for our nuclear deterrent, and voters would not stand for this if they thought it would never be used. The Labour party is trying to dump Corbyn for saying if he were PM he wouldn’t do it.

    Scare stories about ISIS nukes have been appearing in the tabloid press. Nuke their headquarters in Syria and the problem is solved.

  20. gabkad on November 29, 2015 at 05:52

    Jane, what I’m finding more interesting is what’s missing. What are the Israelis doing? This conflict is going on in their backyard, so to speak. And the Israelis have nukes. If nukes are required, the Brits most certainly won’t need to provide them. But at the same time, due to fallout, I don’t think anyone would dare use a nuclear weapon in that area.

  21. Jane Karlsson on November 29, 2015 at 07:58

    Yes, exactly. Even the Israelis wouldn’t dare. But heroic Cameron might. Remember heroic Blair? Without Blair, Bush would never have been able to invade Iraq. Blair is Cameron’s hero. He calls him the Master, according to rumour. That means, he regards the invasion of Iraq as a great achievement by a great man. So he has to do something even greater.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k