Monday, December 5, 2016   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » General

Islamophobe With Militarist Name Attacks Muslims For Militarist Names

12 April 2013 General 4 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

220px-Harold_Rhode

by Ali Gharib (Daily Beast)

Harold Rhode’s Muslim problem may have just turned into a Harold Rhode problem.

Rhode, thankfully, no longer serves in the Pentagon, where he once headed up an in-house think-tank that played a role in cherry-picking and over-emphasizing shoddy intelligence in favor of attacking Iraq. These days, Rhode is relegated the Gatestone Institute, a spin-off of the Hudson Institute where right-wingers (along with Alan Dershowitz) champion hawkish, often “pro-Israel” policies and, not infrequently, rattle off Islamophobic blogposts. (Rhode also serves as a board member of the Islamophobic film production group, Clarion Fund.) In his latest Gatestone posting, Rhode goes on at length about what he thinks is a quirk more or less unique to Islamic cultures, and one that proves how violent they are. Here’s a long excerpt, with my emphasis:Would we name our children Warrior, Conqueror, Sword, or Holy War? These are the meanings of personal names commonly used in the Muslim world, and may give some insight into Muslim values, especially regarding violence. Violence has been endemic to Muslim society from its inception more than 1,400 years ago. […]

Western societies almost never give their children names which denote violence. The Protestants who settled America often gave their children names indicative of their values, such as Felicity, Charity, Prudence, Hope, Faith, Joy or Chastity. Other Christians gave their children names that reflect similar values, or names from the Old or New Testaments: Miriam, Mary, David, Luke. As names can be an indicator of how a civilization views itself and the outside world, names parents choose to give their children are at least something of a guide to what they hold in high regard and what they wish for their children. And as Muslims often choose names related to war and violence, could those possibly be indicative of their values?Got that? Parents give their children violent names because they come from inherently violent societies. Well, Mr. and Mrs. Rhode got some ‘splainin’ to do, as the kids say. According to one baby name site, “Harold” means “leader of an army“; according to another, “army ruler“; another says it’s a “compound name composed of the elements here (army) and weald (ruler, power, control).” You get the idea. Surely this militarist outlook is exactly what Rhode’s parents wanted to project to the outside world, “indicative of their values,” values of violence and war. What does this say about Rhode’s civilization?

Original post: Islamophobe With Militarist Name Attacks Muslims For Militarist Names

Share/Bookmark




4 Comments »

  1. These people seriously need to get their heads out of their rear ends and use them for once! Did he hear himself make that statement and did he sound stupid to himself, but oh wait, his head was in his rear end, he didn’t hear himself say that or else he might have restrained himself in fear of sounding like and a$$!

  2. The names of the perpetrators do not matter the names of the Muslim victims do.

    Dear Great White Rabbit preserve us from the ‘White Paper Brigade”.

    Islamophobia simply does not exist for rational fear is not a phobia.

    To say Islamophobia exists is irrational.

    Why?

    If a cultural codex such as the Nazis Mein Kampf , Christian Bible, Muslim Quran, … whatever cultural codex, consistently informs within the variance of derived adherents behavior, terror against Other and subjugation of woman particularly as the political power of such a construct increases then the fear of such an entity is rational on the part of Other and woman – it would be irrational to be otherwise.

    Is it the case Islam does not now or never has consistently informed terror against Other and subjugation of woman to mans will particularly when it obtains political power?

    Where do Muslims and apologists for them such as this author think the “few violent Muslims” come from, the back of a cereal packet?

    Norman Hillson “I speak of Germany”, London 1937 said “..; the NAZI … that great unified people are looking for peace and see friendship with Britain as a basis for peace not only for themselves but for everyone else.”

    It is this author along with the Hillsons, the apologists for tawdry dogma who enable the cultural relativist ethical nihilist jackboot on the throat of reason until it is to late – Peace in our Neighborhood-Gad! Like the Egyptian Coptics? Like the Indonesian Christians? Like the Saudi Arabian Women? Like Pakistan polio medical personnel? Like the Thailand teachers? Like the ….

    The connection between the construct of Other in Nazi Main Kampf and the Muslim Quran is not a matter of contention it is fact if you care to check – not only the foundation texts themselves but compare actual outcomes against Other on the ground.

    The meaning of the Nazi and Muslim connection is not academic and simply an opportunity for clever wordsmithing. There are too many victims and there are no less each day that passes.

    Richard Dawkins is pointing out the obvious-When a cultural construct of Other(Quran)=another cultural construct of Other(Mein Kampf) be it religious or secular given time and space to flourish you can expect the same outcomes.

    The question you ask ‘Are the outcomes different’? Is there in any Muslim community in space and time a propensity to visit terror on Other – blow them to bit, and destroy Others churches, hunt down those who dare to question the ‘Greatness’ of the Prophet be it Mohammad or Hitler or..

    What Dawkins is saying is based on empirical observation and rational justified understanding of psychological cause and effect at the individual and group level.

    Cultural construct of Other(Quran)=another cultural construct of Other(Mein Kampf)

    Cultural Foundation Text=Ethics=Ideas=Motivation=Action For and Against Other. Psychology 101.

    Therefore ” lumping all Muslims into one box”=” lumping all Nazis into one box”.

    Those who argue Islam consistently informs terror and subjugation of women are told they “conflate the actions of a few violent Muslims”.

    Logic determines “conflate the actions of a few violent Muslims”=”conflate the actions of a few violent Nazis” .

    Yes Other sent to the gas chambers. Is it Other being blown to bits on the streets does not count? Are the churches being shut down by Islamist’s in Indonesia a (yawn) not at all like Kristallnacht “No religious persecution here”.

    Everyday since the seventh century empirical observation informs humanity genocidal constructs of Other lead irrevocably to terror against Other. Islamic text informs a genocidal construct against Other – the empirical proof – torn bodies each and every day.

    Just having witnessed a Muslim woman covered in black cloth being led by her master-and observing the outcomes this ethic is informing when Islam obtains sufficient political power means woman should not have a rational fear as to the consequences of Islam?

    The ethics which inform French school children being run down and shot and Thailand teachers being murdered and Church’s forced to close in Indonesia and ….. does not inform a rational fear? How many died today torn apart by Islamic codex?

    How many victims everyday since Mohammed poked his hearing voices head out of the cave?

    Islam is only a reality if Humanity allows it to be so to its own terrible detriment. Fear yes, justified yes, rational yes. How many more Muslims victims do Muslims and their apologists want? Alas they never will be satisfied.

    You can look at Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria,…. and say if such a dogma is allowed to flourish in my neighborhood to enable a political foothold I have no worries regards my security or independence?

    Islamophobia simply does not exist for rational fear is not a phobia.

    To say Islamophobia exists is irrational.

    Why?

  3. Islamophobia simply does not exist for rational fear is not a phobia.

    To say Islamophobia exists is irrational.

    Why?

    Simply replace Indonesia for Sweden,etc

    “Indonesia’s moral police a threat to democracy” Date May 22, 2012 Michael Bachelard The Age

    “But many Indonesians are worried a profound shift is happening in their culture. They are watching as a social movement of arrogant Islam grows more powerful, and moves virtually unopposed from victory to victory.

    One liberal described it as the ”Talibanisation” of Indonesia”

    The fact is Islam as with any cultural foundation text informs a variance of behavior, clearly given time and space this includes terror against Other and subjugation of women as the political power of the adherents grow. Moderate liberals or no moderate liberals.

    Why.

    The Quran informs the nature of the the Islamic feedback mechanisms to silence dissent – violence.

  4. I consider the old testament the most violent book ever written, so he must be violent him self.
    He should consider the jews the most violent people in the world, celebrating only they’re past murders, simbolicaly eating they’re victims ears. I’m a christian and I know that Jews are trying to make Muslims and Christians hate each other. One only needs to read the old testament to find out why. Jews consider them self “the chosen people” imagine that!
    They hate Jesus Christ, and that is a fact. Only a evil sect could crusify Jesus. Only a evil sect would do it again like Sara Silvermann and some other evil jews

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>